Critical Approaches To Women and Gender in Higher Education (PDFDrive)

Critical
Approaches
to
WO M E N and
GENinDER
Higher Educati
on
Edited by
Pamela L. Eddy,
Kelly Ward, and
Tehmina Khwaja
Critical Approaches to Women and Gender
in Higher Education
Pamela L. Eddy • Kelly Ward • Tehmina Khwaja
Editors
Critical Approaches to
Women and Gender
in Higher Education
Editors
Pamela L. Eddy Kelly Ward
College of William and Mary Washington State University
Williamsburg, Virginia, USA Pullman, Washington, USA
Tehmina Khwaja
Comsats Institute of Information
Technology
Islamabad, Pakistan
ISBN 978-1-137-59284-2 ISBN 978-1-137-59285-9 (eBook)

DOI 10.1057/978-1-137-59285-9
Library of Congress Control Number: 2016963260
© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s) 2017

This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the
Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of
translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on
microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval,
electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now
known or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this
publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are
exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information
in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the pub-
lisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, express or implied, with respect to the
material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made.
Cover illustration: © AF Fotografie / Alamy Stock Photo
Printed on acid-free paper
This Palgrave Macmillan imprint is published by Springer Nature

The registered company is Nature America Inc.
The registered company address is:1 New York Plaza, New York, NY 10004, U.S.A.
To my father, Leon Eddy, from whom I learned that girls could do anything
they wanted, and to my mother, Victoria Eade Eddy, who, as a feminist in
an immigrant family, showed me what it means to be a strong woman.
–Pamela
To my late mother, Irene Ward, for imparting to me the importance of a

college education.
–Kelly
To my parents, Javade and Rubina Khwaja, who supported me every step

of the way in my life. I am who I am because of the family I had the good
fortune to be born into, so this book is for them.
–Tehmina
Foreword
What makes this book especially useful is that it brings together many
perspectives and levels of analysis to provide a clear understanding of
the complexity of gender and related issues in higher education. Critical
Approaches to Women and Gender in Higher Education is a book which
many of us interested in and committed to organizational change and
equity will find especially relevant. This book helps to reframe or add new
frames of analysis to the conditions of administrative leaders, faculty, staff
and students in higher education. It also gives us a starting point from
which to rethink and reimagine strategies to change our postsecondary
organizations for the betterment of our internal stakeholders.
Editors Pamela Eddy, Kelly Ward and Tehmina Khwaja bring together
the creative work of significant contributors to the discourse of issues fac-
ing women and pathways for change in higher education. Here we see
commentary from Susan Iverson and Elizabeth Allan on feminist post-
structuralism; Jaime Lester and Margaret Sallee on faculty work roles and
work expectations; Jeni Hart on feminist positionalities; Rebecca Ropers-
Huilman, Leah Reinert, and Kate Diamond on relations of power and
knowledge; and Ana Martínez Alemán on generational dispositions. In
each case, it becomes apparent that gender must be problematized in
order for change to be realized.
We have seen many changes in higher education over the last couple of
decades. None is more important than the shift from focusing on equality
using so-called essentialist classification systems of difference of historically
discriminated groups—such as those defined by sex, race, and sexual ori-
entation—to a broadly constructed call for diversity and equity to ensure
vii
viii FOREWORD
that diverse groups with various and often intersecting dimensions have
equal opportunities to participate and succeed in higher education. The
authors of these chapters facilitate understanding of that transition with
a broad and inclusive approach and creatively challenging canonical or
binary constructions of gender and mutually exclusive categories and enti-
ties. Instead, they position gender as dynamically and reciprocally consti-
tuted with race, ethnicity, class, age and sexual orientation and identity.
This is especially timely due to the growing diversity of participants in our
colleges and universities. Moreover, the contributors exercise consider-
able care to avoid a deficit view. Instead, they offer the reader grist to
reduce structural impediments and improve policies, and to change norms
to facilitate more effective leadership, career success and satisfaction across
participant groups in higher education.
Each chapter, standing alone, is a useful contribution to understanding
an aspect of gender in higher education, but they all come together to form
a mosaic of the complexities and realities of gender and gender change.
For example, poststructural, critical discourse, structural, structuration
and standpoint lenses are brought to bear on four spheres and stakeholder
groups—leaders, faculty, staff, and students. At the same time, organizing
schemes of gender performativity, gender identity, and communities of
practice are used to further illuminate the implicit, subtle, nuanced and at
times unquestioned phenomena in academic organizations.
“Doing” gender as proposed by Candace West and Don Zimmerman is
a routine accomplishment whereby most individuals automatically assign a
gender categorization to those they meet, while in turn being similarly cat-
egorized. This book is not a routine accomplishment. Readers of Critical
Approaches to Women and Gender in Higher Education will find that this
volume breaks from a static frame in many ways, bringing into sharp relief
and investigating the range of daily individual, group, and organizational
practices that contribute to the construction and reconstruction of dif-
ferences and inequalities. While the work is intriguing, it is also practical,
addressing the needs and concerns of thoughtful members of the aca-
demic community. For at the core of this book is a call for commitment to
action. All the chapters challenge us to take an honest and critical look at
our colleges and universities and their actors. We see what they are doing
FOREWORD ix
well and what needs to change, with a call to commit to thinking differ-
ently about gender and power in order to be agents of change for a more
equitable and just academy.
Mary Ann Danowitz
College of Education
North Carolina State University,
Raleigh, NC, USA
July 11, 2016
Acknowledgements
Edited books by their very nature are a collaborative enterprise. We have

had the good fortune to work with talented scholars as contributors to this
volume. In retrospect, this book has been in the making for over a decade.
In countless conferences and meetings, many of us have been in conversa-
tions about addressing issues associated with gender in the academy. We
have talked about work and family topics prompted by Do Babies Matter,
participated in symposia on current issues of gender in higher education,
learned about issues facing Trans* students, and any number of other
gender related topics. The result was the establishment of a wide band of
scholars and researchers pushing forward an agenda focused on women
in higher education and on wider expanses and understandings in gender
research. This book would not have been possible without the collective
talents of many scholars and we are grateful to our colleagues for joining
us on this journey.
As with any work, we build on the work of scholars who have come
before us. Judith Glazer Raymo, Estela Bensimon, and Barbara Townsend
began pushing a feminist agenda in higher education at a time when this
topic was perilous to a burgeoning scholar’s career and not accepted
as a topic of inquiry. We are grateful for their contributions. Mary Ann
Danowitz helped us think about how our work is situated in the larger
body of research, and importantly, pushed us to consider how we could
translate our research to activism regarding gender in higher education.
As a field of study, higher education draws from research in sociology,
gender studies, psychology, economics, and business, to name a few. It is
important to recognize the ways in which disciplines and fields need to pay
xi
xii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
attention to these points of intersection and to consider what this perspec-

tive offers to our understanding of gender in particular.
As editors, we also want to acknowledge how we each are grateful for
the collective energies and work on this project. It is not often that a col-
laborative project goes so smoothly—we have each learned a lot in the
process. Thanks are also extended to our colleagues who have helped con-
tribute to our thinking on this volume, even when they may not have been
aware of the importance of their commentary. A special thanks is extended
to Dr. Kristen Tarantino from the College of William and Mary for her
help in final editing and formatting. Her close read of the text helped us
complete a more polished volume, though we bear responsibility for any
errors.
Contents
1 Introduction 1
Pamela L. Eddy, Tehmina Khwaja, and Kelly Ward
Part I Leaders and Organizations 11
2 Problematizing Gender in Higher Education:

Why Leaning In Isn’t Enough 13
Pamela L. Eddy and Kelly Ward
3 Finding their Own Voice: Women’s Leadership Rhetoric 41

Tehmina Khwaja
4 Conditions Enabling Women’s Leadership

in Community Colleges 61
Amy Martin and KerryAnn O’Meara
5 Higher Education Policy: Disrupting the Structures

that Bind Us 87
Susan V. Iverson and Elizabeth J. Allan
xiii
xiv CONTENTS
Part II Faculty and Staff 113
6 Troubling Gender Norms and the Ideal

Worker in Academic Life 115
Jaime Lester and Margaret W. Sallee
7 Part of the Discussion? Gendered Role of Support

Staff in Higher Education 139
Samantha Armstrong Ash
8 Feminist Faculty: Striving to Be Heard 163

Jeni Hart
9 Gender Equity in Austrian University Contexts:

Constructions of Power, Knowledge, and Response-
ability in the Process of Change 191
Rebecca Ropers-Huilman, Leah J. Reinert,
and Kate Diamond
10 Generational Dispositions of Women Faculty:

A Critical Examination 215
Ana M. Martínez Alemán
Part III Students 235
11 Trans* College Students: Moving Beyond Inclusion 237

Susan B. Marine
12 The Female “Confidence Gap” and Feminist Pedagogy:

Gender Dynamics in the Active, Engaged Classroom 259
Amanda L. Irvin
CONTENTS xv
13 Changing Views of Self-as-Leader: What Female

College Students Tell Us 277
Brenda L. McKenzie and Susan V. Iverson
14 Honoring the “Face Behind the Mask”: Interrogating

Masculine Performatives as Counter-Hegemonic Action 299
Tracy Davis and Vern Klobassa
Part IV Looking Forward 323
15 Critical Approaches to Women and Gender in Higher

Education: Reaching the Tipping Point for Change 325
Tehmina Khwaja, Pamela L. Eddy, and Kelly Ward
Bibliography 337
Index 381
List of Contributors
Elizabeth J. Allan is Professor of Higher Education at the University of Maine

where she is also an affiliate faculty member with the Women’s, Gender, and
Sexuality Studies program. She is the author of Women’s Status in Higher
Education: Equity Matters (Jossey-Bass, 2011) and Policy, Gender, and Education:
Constructing Women’s Status (Routledge, 2008). She has authored articles and
book chapters related to gender, diversity, and campus climate in higher
education.
Samantha Armstrong Ash serves as the Associate Director of Student Activities,
Involvement and Leadership at Eastern Washington University and Adjunct
Faculty for the M.A. in Organizational Leadership program at Gonzaga University.
In her tenth year as a student affairs administrator and fifth year at EWU, Samantha
specializes in student involvement, leadership development, and sorority/frater-
nity life. Her research focuses on how support staff contribute to student learning
and development. Samantha holds a Ph.D. in Higher Education and Leadership
from Washington State University.
Tracy Davis serves as Professor in the Department of Educational Studies at
Western Illinois University where he also directs the College Student Personnel
Program. In 2011 he began serving as Founding Director of the Center for the
Study of Masculinities and Men’s Development. He has published widely regard-
ing men’s development, sexual assault prevention and social justice. Dr. Davis co-
authored his most recent book Advancing Social Justice in 2013 and co-edited
Masculinities in Higher Education in 2011. Most importantly, he remains wildly
unfinished.
Kate Diamond is a Ph.D. student in the Organizational Leadership, Policy, and
Development department at the University of Minnesota. Her research focuses on
xvii
xviii LIST OF CONTRIBUTORS
equity and teaching and learning quality in education, both in the United States
and abroad.
Pamela L. Eddy is a Professor of Higher Education at the College of William and
Mary. Her research interests involve leadership development, faculty work, and
strategic partnerships, with particular emphasis on the role of gender in these con-
texts. Eddy’s most recent book is titled Developing Tomorrow’s Leaders: Context,
Challenges, and Capabilities (with co-authors Sydow, Alfred, and Garza Mitchell).
Jeni Hart is an Associate Professor of Higher Education at the University of
Missouri. Her scholarship is centered on three mutually reinforcing themes: fac-
ulty work, gender and feminism, and campus climate.
Amanda L. Irvin serves as Associate Director of Teaching Initiatives and
Programs in the Center for Teaching and Learning at Columbia University. Her
research interests include student engagement, feminist pedagogy, American lit-
erature, and women and gender studies.
Susan V. Iverson is Professor in Higher Education Leadership at Manhattanville
College. Iverson’s research interests focus on: equity and diversity, status of women
in higher education, critical pedagogy, and feminist and poststructuralist approaches
to inquiry. She has two co-edited volumes: Feminist community engagement:
Achieving praxis (Palgrave, 2014) and Reconstructing policy analysis in higher edu-
cation: Feminist poststructural perspectives (Routledge, 2010).
Tehmina Khwaja is an Assistant Professor in the Humanities department at
COMSATS Institute of Information Technology in Islamabad, Pakistan. She
earned her PhD in Higher Education from the College of William & Mary as a
Fulbright student from Pakistan. Her research interests include leadership and
gender issues in higher education, technology, discourse analysis, and qualitative
methodology.
Vern Klobassa is the Director of Communication and Training for the Division of
Student Affairs at the University of St. Thomas Minnesota. He is also a doctoral
candidate in an interdisciplinary leadership program with a concentration in criti-
cal pedagogy. He is an instructor for the University of Minnesota’s Undergraduate
Leadership Minor and has taught community-based action research to Master’s
students at the University of St. Thomas. Vern is the chair of the ACPA College
Student Educators International Coalition on Men and Masculinities, a group that
promotes college men’s development from a feminist social justice standpoint. He
has developed a number of programs that create space for college students to learn
about and discuss gender and commit to making justice-oriented change in their
spheres of influence.
LIST OF CONTRIBUTORS xix
Jaime Lester is an Associate Professor of Higher Education, George Mason

University, holds a Ph.D. and M.Ed. in higher education from the Rossier School
of Education at the University of Southern California. The overarching goal of her
research program is to examine organizational change and leadership in higher
education. Her more recent research on learning analytics and pedagogy in
Computer Science is funded by the National Science Foundation (#1444789) and
Google. She is also the Editor of Community College Review.
Susan B. Marine is Assistant Professor and Program Director of the Higher
Education Graduate Program at Merrimack College. Her research interests include
feminist praxis in the academy and the advancement of LGBTQ student visibility
and agency. She is the author of Stonewall’s Legacy: Bisexual, Gay, Lesbian and
Transgender Students in Higher Education.
Amy Martin serves as Associate Director for the Neighborhood Student Success
Collaborative and the University Innovation Alliance Fellow at Michigan State
University. Amy’s 25 years of progressive leadership experience includes: research-
ing women and leadership in higher education; developing strong student-cen-
tered academic communities on large, diverse campuses; leading efforts to improve
graduation and persistence outcomes for first generation, lower income and/or
minoritized students; responding to complex campus crises; and teaching, devel-
oping, and training multiple levels of student, graduate, and professional staff.
Ana M. Martínez Alemán is Professor and Chair of the Educational Leadership
& Higher Education Administration Department at Boston College in the Lynch
School of Education. Her most recent work includes Accountability, pragmatic
aims, and the American university (Routledge, 2011) and Critical approaches to
the study of higher education (Johns Hopkins, 2015). Editor of Educational Policy,
she is co-author of Online Social Networking on Campus: Understanding What
Matters in Student Culture, co-editor of Women in Higher Education: An
Encyclopedia.
Brenda L. McKenzie is Senior Lecturer in Higher Education Administration at
Vanderbilt University’s Peabody College. McKenzie’s research interests focus on:
women and leadership, college student leadership development, preparation of
student affairs professionals, and equity and diversity.
KerryAnn O’Meara is Co-PI and Co-Director of the University of Maryland’s
ADVANCE program for Inclusive Excellence and a faculty member in the Higher
Education program at the University of Maryland. She regularly consults with
campuses on revision of reward system policies to support multiple forms of schol-
arship, gender equity reform, faculty development and engaged scholarship.
Leah J. Reinert earned her Ph.D. in Higher Education in the Department of
Organizational Leadership, Policy, and Development at the University of
xx LIST OF CONTRIBUTORS
Minnesota. Her research interests include faculty issues, equity and diversity in
higher education, gender in higher education, LGBT issues in higher education,
and multicultural teaching and learning.
Rebecca Ropers-Huilman is Professor and Vice Provost for Faculty and Academic
Affairs at the University of Minnesota. She has published four books and more
than 50 scholarly works related to equity, diversity, and change in higher education
contexts both in the United States and international contexts.
Margaret W. Sallee is an Associate Professor of Higher Education at the University
at Buffalo. Her research examines the intersection of individual experience and
organizational culture to interrogate the ways in which gender and other social
identities operate on college campuses. Her most recent book, Faculty Fathers:
Toward A New Ideal in the Research University, was published in 2014 by the State
University of New York Press.
Kelly Ward is Professor of Higher Education and Chair of Educational Leadership,
Sport Studies & Counseling/Educational Psychology at Washington State
University. Her research focuses on faculty career development, community
engagement, gender, work-family, and leadership in higher education.
List of Figures
Fig. 7.1 Tenets of work empowerment (Adapted from Sarmiento, Spence

Laschinger, and Iwasiw, “Nurse Educators’ Workplace
Empowerment, Burnout, and Job Satisfaction: Testing
Kanter’s Theory,” p. 136) 147
xxi
List of Tables
Table 4.1 Women Presidents 1998–2012 63

Table 4.2 Participants 67
Table 5.1 The sample for this study includes 104
Table 8.1 Participant profiles 168
Table 12.1 Participation and preparedness rubric 267
xxiii
CHAPTER 1
Introduction
Pamela L. Eddy, Tehmina Khwaja, and Kelly Ward
With the beginning of a new millennium, there has been great confi-
dence regarding the status of women in higher education. There was
hope that equity would be achieved in the faculty ranks, classrooms
would no longer be chilly for women students, and parity would occur
in leadership. Yet, nagging problems persist. True, women outnumber
men as undergraduate students (59%) and more women are now hired
as assistant professors (49%).1 There have also been improvements in
the steps leading to top-level leadership positions, with more women
becoming chief academic officers (40%).2 But these numbers are only
part of the story.
In spite of the progress made, more change is required, not only in
terms of overall parity and equity for women, but also in terms of more
P.L. Eddy (*)

College of William & Mary, School of Education, Williamsburg, VA, USA
T. Khwaja
Humanities Department, COMSATS Institute of Information Technology,
Islamabad, Pakistan
K. Ward
Washington State University, College of Education, Pullman, WA, USA
© The Author(s) 2017 1

P.L. Eddy et al. (eds.), Critical Approaches to Women and Gender in
Higher Education, DOI 10.1057/978-1-137-59285-9_1
2 P.L. EDDY ET AL.
nuanced views regarding gender and the gender spectrum. As a starting

point to setting the stage for progress and understanding, we offer three
perspectives. First, there is an urgent need to consider the wide range of
constructions of gender that are not addressed when we speak only of the
women in higher education and the crises associated with underrepresen-
tation and progress.3 Second, reducing problems to a “woman’s” issue
focuses solely on agency of individual women and not on the structures or
discourse that bind women in higher education settings.4 Finally, viewing
issues only in the aggregate misses the impact that work structures have
on individuals laboring in the trenches. For example, a review of women’s
numbers over all points to progress (and there has been progress), but a
closer investigation highlights key areas in which women have not had
much traction (e.g., in STEM fields, in top level leadership positions).
Part of the intent of this volume is to further analyze the status of
women and raise questions to guide future research and policy. By high-
lighting the intersectionality of roles and identities, a more complex por-
trait and understanding of gender issues in higher education becomes
apparent. The volume is structured to critically review the experiences of
three groups currently working or studying in institutions of higher edu-
cation,5 namely, students, faculty and staff, and administrators. Exploring
all these vantage points side by side is fundamental to addressing the
inequitable structures that systemically hinder different constructions of
gender in the academy and use power to maintain stratification. Moving
beyond simple binary concepts of men and women is critical to taking full
advantage of leadership capacity in colleges and universities. An overview
of each of the chapters included in the volume sets the stage for how each
one addresses gender and positionality using a set of guiding questions.
Simply looking at higher education data and the number of women
participating in higher education can lead one to believe that “women’s
issues” are no longer a matter of concern in this sector (after all, women
represent half of all undergraduate students). Current rhetoric in written
and spoken discourse is complicit in advancing this complacency. However,
expanded notions of gender, in context and social construction, continue
to challenge popular beliefs and show that gender gaps in higher education
persist at all levels. Gender is socially constructed6 through social interac-
tions occurring on both an individual and organizational level, making
the continuum of gender much broader than simply the sex categories
of man or woman. As Judith Lorber concluded, “Individuals are born
sexed but not gendered, and they have to be taught to be masculine
INTRODUCTION 3
or feminine.”7 Yet, the binary of masculine and feminine becomes too

simplistic and does not recognize all the permutations of gender between
these two end points on a continuum. The intent of this volume is to pro-
vide deeper views of gender, to expand critical perspectives that offer new
ways of looking at gender, and to make arguments for ongoing attention
to addressing gender gaps in higher education.
We seek to problematize some of the critical issues associated with
gender in higher education in order to create expanded conceptual and
theoretical models regarding how it is manifested in these institutions,
leadership, faculty and staff roles, and campus student settings. The inclu-
sion of the perspectives of various stakeholders and driving questions
regarding gender construction provide a context of intersection that
brings to the surface important current and future issues regarding gender
in higher education.
The sense of self that women hold in academe emerges from gendered
expectations of women and men at work.8 A masculine ethic exists in man-
agement, with clerical work and lower level positions feminized. Rosabeth
Moss Kanter concluded that bureaucratic structures give power through
activities and alliances, most often to the exclusion of women.9 Although
much about work has changed in the past generation, hierarchical and
bureaucratic structures in higher education remain—thus, so too does the
issue of structure as barrier.10 The gendered organizational structure of
higher education builds on the division of work along binary gender lines,
and the reinforcement of existing power structures that preference men
and the reification of gendered roles.11 Joan Acker noted that gender and
race inequalities are apparent when one notices “the relative scarcity of
White women and people of color in most top level positions and the exis-
tence of large job categories filled almost entirely with low-wage women
workers with little power and autonomy”12—a description that sounds a
lot like most college settings.
Individuals begin to be socialized into performing gender starting at
birth. Carrie Paechter argued that individuals learn to perform gender
through communities of practice that are masculine or feminine—leaving
little room for “other.”13 Individuals are penalized when they do not meet
these norms.14 Judith Butler pointed out, “If gender is a kind of doing,
an incessant activity performed, in part, without one’s knowing and with-
out one’s willing, it is not for that reason automatic or mechanical.”15
The act of “doing gender”16 is iterative. Even though the social construc-
tion of gender creates a continuum or matrix of possible intersections
4 P.L. EDDY ET AL.
that construct ultimate position, gender is still often reduced to the short-
hand of the ends of the continuum—you are a man or you are a woman.
Consequently, those who do not fall within the binary categories of men
and women find themselves sidelined or completely ignored, as evident
from the lack of higher education data available on individuals on the
gender spectrum. Such simplistic binaries are further exacerbated by the
tendency to overlook race, class, sexual orientation, and other aspects
of identity. Any comprehensive analysis of gender needs to consider all
aspects of identity and intersectionality.
In this volume, we explore questions regarding the way in which gen-
der is operationalized on campus, but also intend to move past mere
questioning of the current status quo of gender as binary. Further, the
volume seeks to offer alternative perspectives and new ways to think about
gender in higher education, and next steps to addressing gender gaps.
Further, analyzing gender using feminist standpoint theory17 provides a
mechanism for surfacing areas of intersection, for pointing out sources of
power that negatively affect individuals, and for moving issues of gender
from the periphery to the center of attention. As Sandra Harding argued,
“Androcentric, economically advantaged, racist, Eurocentric, and het-
erosexist conceptual frameworks ensured systematic ignorance and error
about not only the lives of the oppressed, but also the lives of the oppres-
sors and thus about how nature and social relations in general worked.”18
The use of standpoint theory provides a mechanism for mapping out the
ways in which structures, policies, disciplinary norms, and practice create
oppressive forms of power.19 Further, we intend in this volume to critically
analyze the issues of gender in higher education as a way to move from
simply identifying problems to providing a frame for analysis, understand-
ing, and institutional change.
Judith Glazer-Raymo long ago argued that cultural myths regarding
women in the academy must be dispelled, but not by relying merely on
new policies to solve traditional problems or by looking at data in simplistic
ways.20 For example, looking at data at macroscopic levels makes it easy to
perpetuate the myth that the “woman problem” no longer exists in higher
education, given parity in representation among students and incoming
faculty. Popular notions of women taking over college campuses, given
higher enrollments and greater graduation rates, have brought compla-
cency to many campuses regarding a sustained focus on gender concerns.
Yet, digging a bit deeper highlights that problems still exist numerically
and structurally,21 especially when gender is analyzed at microscopic levels.
INTRODUCTION 5
The research contained in this volume offers critical approaches that go

beyond superficial examination of data to dig beneath the surface and
examine gender in higher education with a focus on the future implica-
tions of current realities. The hope is to not only provide more insight on
issues facing women, but, more importantly, to find and create pathways
for change.
Specifically, exploring issues of gender, we have organized the book
around three broad categories to address a variety of stakeholders: (1)
Gender and organizational leadership; (2) Gender and staff and faculty
roles; and (3) Construction of gender for college students. The authors of
each chapter pay attention to expanding gender beyond a binary gender
construction by offering views of gender that are attentive to race, sexual
orientation, and class as well as intersectionality. We also take care to frame
gender in ways that do not position issues from a deficit perspective.22
Throughout the chapters runs the common theme of critically analyz-
ing gender and positionality for different groups of women. In each chap-
ter, authors address questions such as the following:
• How do changing constructions of gender challenge current binary

conceptions?
• How does stakeholder location in college settings influence gender
and positionality?
• How can institutional culture be challenged to advance inclusion on
campus?
Attention is paid to the role of power and norms in reifying acceptable

behavior. The authors highlight examples of how stakeholder groups are
challenging traditional concepts of gender in higher education and offer
new ideas and implications for practice. Following is a description of each
category included in the volume.
Critical Issues of Gender and Organizational

Leadership
Top-level leadership in academia continues to be dominated by white
men. Only one in four college presidents is a woman.23 No account
exists to document how many LGBTQ leaders hold cabinet-level posi-
tions, though several presidents who are openly gay or lesbian are known.
6 P.L. EDDY ET AL.
Women’s participation in top leadership positions varies by institutional

type, with more women leading community colleges than research univer-
sities, indicating the existence of cultural and structural issues that impede
women from reaching top leadership positions. This section of the book
addresses questions such as: What structural impediments prevent women
or those along the gender spectrum from reaching top leadership posi-
tions in higher education? How do policies that inform family and medical
leave, work-life balance, and dual career hires shape organizational climate
and culture? How do normative gender expectations of male and female
positional leaders alter (and maybe inform) their leadership practices?
How might leaders use authentic leadership that violate gender norms or
expectations?
Chapter 2, by Pamela L. Eddy and Kelly Ward, investigates the ten-
sion between individual agency and organizational structure. The authors
argue that gendered institutional structures and cultures create barriers
to all who do not emulate traditional, masculine norms and practices. No
matter the level of personal agency, structure trumps in the end. Chapter
3, by Tehmina Khwaja, uncovers how the gendered language of leaders
is evident in presidents’ first major address to campus stakeholders—the
inaugural address. As a site of opportunity to set an agenda, only a hand-
ful of presidents take this occasion to challenge gender norms or set a
feminist agenda for the campus. Yet, change is possible as more women
enter the higher education leadership arena. Chapter 4, by Amy Martin
and KerryAnn O’Meara, highlights how the community college system
in Maryland is an outlier in the nation. The state boasts women presi-
dents at 56 % of its community colleges, well above the national average
(33%). A tipping point in the state was achieved through use of a variety
of policy, developmental, and targeted hires. The final chapter in this sec-
tion of the book, Chapter 5, by Susan Iverson and Elizabeth Allan, uses
policy discourse analysis and feminist post-structural perspectives to sur-
face assumptions and dominant discourses inherent in policy. Suggestions
are offered regarding how to use these analytic frameworks to strengthen
equity policies.
Critical Gender Issues in Faculty and Staff Roles

Equity in faculty ranks for men and women exists at the entry level, and
most often in feminized disciplines, with traditionally masculine disci-
plines (e.g., engineering, computer science) lagging behind in terms of
INTRODUCTION 7
representation.24 Women faculty and staff continue to face structural issues

stemming from gendered organizations operating around the ideal worker
model25 that assumes a worker exists only for work and has no responsibili-
ties outside of it. This section addresses questions such as: How do gender
normative contexts shape individual faculty identity? How do disciplinary
cultures/climates impact pathways to professoriate and academic leader-
ship roles? How do gendered organizations keep women workers from
realizing their potential? What kind of discrimination keeps women and
others along the gender continuum from advancing? What challenges do
faculty members face in pushing a feminist agenda?
Jaime Lester and Margaret Sallee set the stage for this portion of the
book in Chapter 6. Here, they review the ideal worker construct that val-
ues work over family or life outside of work. By using examples of men
and women faculty to explore this construct, they argue that the ideal
worker trope limits the possibilities to identify new solutions to work-life
in a post-modern era. Chapter 7, by Samantha Armstrong, shifts atten-
tion to the role of staff. This chapter outlines how gender roles play out
in staff positions, and highlights the nature of the sticky floor for women
in staff positions. In Chapter 8, Jeni Hart reports on the experiences of
early career feminist academics, highlighting how their feminist position-
alities give voice to their work, but also create constraints in untenured
faculty roles. Gender roles are not unique to the United States. Rebecca
Ropers-Huilman, Leah Reinert, and Kate Diamond (Chapter 9) review
experiences in Austria after the implementation of gender equity policies.
They found that despite policies that require gender equity, in practice,
divides still exist. The final chapter in this section, Chapter 10 by Ana
Martínez Alemán, outlines how multiple generations of women are work-
ing on today’s college campuses. The typology created in this chapter
highlights the different ways in which second- and third-wave feminism
has influenced generations of women.
Critical Issues of Gender for Students
Women represent the majority of students both at the undergraduate

and graduate levels,26 and this high level of participation gives impetus to
claims that gender discrimination is no longer an issue in higher educa-
tion. However, women students tend to be concentrated in feminized
fields such as the arts and humanities, and their low numbers and treat-
ment in Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) are a
8 P.L. EDDY ET AL.
cause of concern.27 The section on students explores questions such as:

What barriers do women students encounter that hinder them in their
leadership aspirations, and push them out of leadership pipelines? Why
do women students underrate themselves and their leadership abilities?
How do Trans* and gender non-conforming students move beyond ideals
of inclusion? How can alternative constructions of masculinity challenge
hegemonic norms?
Susan Marine begins to complicate constructs of gender in Chapter
11. She summarizes the current state of research on trans* and gender
non-conforming students, and explores the obstacles that remain in mov-
ing beyond inclusion. In Chapter 12, Amanda Irvin looks into classroom
dynamics and explores how active learning classes surface socialization of
men and women regarding norms of participation. In this chapter, she
also provides tactics to help break these norms and to educate students
about gender roles. Brenda McKenzie and Susan Iverson, in Chapter
13, explore student leadership roles. Their four-phase model of leader-
ship identity development for women moves from external conceptions
of leadership to internalization of the ways in which it is gendered. Tracy
Davis and Vern Klobassa, in Chapter 14, turn the tables and discuss expec-
tations regarding masculinities. Here too, hegemonic norms exist regard-
ing masculine performativity. The authors conclude by offering options to
create counter-hegemonic narratives.
Summary
The final chapter of the volume, written by the editors, provides a view to
the future. It offers a space to synthesize the main points of the volume.
Using questions on gender and positionality as a guide creates a platform
for this synthesis. Further, we consider how feminist standpoint theory28
provides a mechanism for achieving the objective of thinking differently
about gender in higher education settings. Researchers are increasingly
aware of the limitations of particular identity dimensions as singular ana-
lytic categories.29
Recent attention to gender calls for and focuses on broadening of per-
spectives to include the full spectrum versus formerly narrow views of issues
only facing white cisgender women. An expanded perspective creates new
opportunities of intersection for research and dialogue. Discussing gender
in inclusive ways recognizes that current gender systems are complex and
that those working in college settings each have a part to play in better
INTRODUCTION 9
understanding and reforming them. Using a lens of intersectionality con-

tributes to understanding of “how certain people seem to get positioned
as not only different but also troublesome and, in some instances, margin-
alized.”30 Rather than a perspective of gender as solely about “women’s
issues,” the focus on expanding views of the role of gender in institutions
of higher education shows how long-standing structures support and rein-
force gender stereotypes and workplace norms in ways that disadvantage
some and promote others.31 Research on masculinity, trans* subjectivi-
ties, and intersectionality helps expand theoretical understandings of the
construction of gender, and can influence practical application on campus.
Indeed, much work remains to be done before gender equity is achieved.
Notes
1. Snyder and Dillow, Digest of Education Statistics 2013 (NCES
2015-011).
2. Eckel, Cook, and King, The CAO Census: A National Profile of
Chief Academic Officers.
3. Peter and Horn, “Gender Differences in Participation and
Completion of Undergraduate Education and How They Have
Changed Over Time. Postsecondary Education Descriptive
Analysis Reports” (NCES 2005-169).
4. Eddy and Ward, “Lean In or Opt out: Career Pathways of Academic
Women.”
5. AAUP, It’s not over yet: The annual report on the economic status of
the profession 2010–2011; Snyder and Dillow, Digest of Education
Statistics 2013 (NCES 2015-011).
6. Berger and Luckmann, The Social Constructivism of Reality: A
Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge.
7. Lorber, Paradoxes of Gender, 4.
8. Williams, Unbending Gender: Why Family and Work Conflict and
What to do about it.
9. Kanter, Men and Women at Work.
10. Hatch and Cunliffe, Organization Theory: Modern, Symbolic, and
Postmodern Perspectives.
11. Padavic and Reskin, Men and Women at Work.
12. Acker, Class Questions: Feminist Answers, 111.
13. Paechter, “Masculinities and Femininities as Communities of

Practice.”
10 P.L. EDDY ET AL.
14. Kelan, Performing Gender at Work.

15. Butler, “Performativity, Precarity and Sexual Politics,” 1.
16. West and Zimmerman, “Doing Gender,” 126.
17. Harding, The Feminist Standpoint Theory Reader: Intellectual and
Political Controversies.
18. Ibid., 5.
19. Ibid.
20. Glazer-Raymo, Shattering the Myths: Women in Academe.
21. Glazer-Raymo, “The Feminist Agenda: A Work in Progress.”
22. Green, “Historically Underserved Students: What We Know, What
We Still Need to Know.”
23. American Council on Education, The American College President:
2012 Edition.

2015-011).
What to do about it.

2015-011).
27. Rosser, The science glass ceiling: Academic women scientists and the
struggle to succeed.
28. Harding, The feminist standpoint theory reader: Intellectual and
political controversies.
29. Berger and Guidroz, The Intersectional Approach: Transforming
the Academy through Race, Class, and Gender; Diamond and
Butterworth, “Questioning Gender and Sexual Identity: Dynamic
Links Over Time”; Hurtado and Sinha, “More than Men: Latino
Feminist Masculinities and Intersectionality”; Montoya, “Latino
Gender Differences in Public Opinion: Results from the Latino
National Political Survey.”
30. Staunaes, “Where have all the subjects gone? Bringing Together
the Concepts of Intersectionality and Subjectification,” 101.
31. Valian, Why so Slow? The Advancement of Women.
PART I
Leaders and Organizations

CHAPTER 2
Problematizing Gender in Higher

Education: Why Leaning In Isn’t Enough
Pamela L. Eddy and Kelly Ward
Sheryl Sandberg, COO at Facebook, suggested in Lean In that women

need to try harder and not hold back in their quest for success.1 Yet, the
data in higher education—across the spectrum from students to faculty
to leaders—runs counter to the narrative that women should just work
harder to get ahead. Women are already working hard. They are enter-
ing into the pipeline for college in greater numbers than men, but the
exclusive corner office eludes them. Despite high levels of participation in
college attendance, women do not pursue academic degrees that have his-
torically been male dominated. For example, STEM majors (e.g., physical
sciences, engineering, computer science, mathematics) all produce more
male graduates.2 When degrees become feminized over time, like educa-
tion, nursing, social work, and others, salaries decrease, and fewer men
pursue college majors in these areas.3 Pointedly, even in these feminized
degree areas, men still hold top-level leadership positions, like in educa-
tion, where 75% of school superintendent positions are held by men.4
P.L. Eddy (*)

K. Ward

14 P.L. EDDY AND K. WARD
The type of degree programs female students complete influences the

career options that women ultimately hold. If fewer women graduate with
STEM degrees, high income careers in these fields are not available to
them. But, even when more women are finishing college in greater num-
bers, like in education, the top leadership position of superintendent or
college president still remains out of reach. The data suggest that some-
thing else is contributing to educational and career outcomes than mere
individual agency.
When looking at faculty ranks, a similar trend emerges. It is no surprise
that fewer women faculty are teaching in the traditionally male-domi-
nated areas of physical sciences (17%), engineering (8%), and mathematics
(28%).5 More broadly, women also slip in advancement to full professor
across all fields. Even though women start out in equal numbers in tenure
lines for academic positions, they often get stuck in associate professor
ranks.6 The even playing field at the assistant professor level drops over
time to only 31% of full professor positions held by women.7 Because top
level faculty rank is often a pre-requisite for advancement into leadership,
women are missing out on career opportunities. An often-used retort
to these lower numbers of women in top positions is that this pipeline
issue will resolve itself as more women are conferred PhD degrees—but
this is not the case. Women earned 47% of all doctoral degrees in 2000,
jumping to 53% of all doctoral degrees conferred in 2010.8 By some esti-
mates, assuming no gender inequality, constant faculty size, and one-to-
one replacement of tenure track faculty, given the current makeup of the
faculty, it would take between 35 and 50 years for women to achieve
parity at the higher academic ranks.9 Something is happening to women
on the way to promotion to full professor that goes beyond individual
accomplishment.
As leaders, women occupy scant numbers of senior level positions in
colleges. Acker10 defined gendered organizations as those in which top-
level positions are held by white men, and positions at the lowest-level
staff position are occupied by women. The gendered organizational struc-
tures in place regulate women in staff positions onto sticky floors, and
despite participation in development of their human capital, women find
it hard to get out of these low-level positions.11 At the other end of the
hierarchy, the phenomenon of the glass ceiling emerges. An article in the
Wall Street Journal popularized the term “glass ceiling,”12 which reflects
an invisible barrier to further advancement for women on the top rungs
of leadership. A Glass Ceiling Commission operated from 1991 to 1996
PROBLEMATIZING GENDER IN HIGHER EDUCATION: WHY LEANING IN... 15
to study the issue.13 Despite the naming of the phenomenon, the issue of
the glass ceiling remains. Sandberg14 argues that one way to break through
is for women to stay the course (i.e., lean in) and keep themselves mov-
ing forward, to avoid holding back when it comes to advancement. The
push-pull of individual efforts tells one side of the story of women’s lack
of advancement, but misses placing attention on structural issues or biases
that play a part in creating barriers in moving up the career ladder.
A mixed portrait of women in higher education is created when looking
at the numbers. On the one hand, women are making strides in attending
and graduating from college in greater numbers than men. On the other
hand, what they study and what these early educational roots allow them
to pursue for leadership positions results in different outcomes as men
continue to dominate leadership roles. In this case, Sandberg would point
out the ways in which women limit themselves and their advancement
prospects by opting out of opportunities or by “taking their foot off the
gas.”15 Clearly, personal agency and the choices women make are central
when considering Sandberg’s concept of Lean In.16 Yet, the role of agency
based on individual choices is counterbalanced by choices limited by struc-
tures and rules.17 Tensions emerge when the dualism of individuals and
organizations are brought together. Structures influence individuals and
their exercise of agency.18 In the end, both the explicit and implicit rules of
academe dictate how faculty members, leaders, and students, in particular
women, are judged based on the structures in place.19
The situation of women in higher education is complicated. Presumably,
if it was just a matter of professional development or increases in the num-
bers of women, colleges and universities would not continue to face prob-
lems associated with underrepresentation. In this chapter, we use theory
and, in particular, turn to Foucault20 to better understand and problema-
tize the role of power for individuals as they make choices and the sub-
sequent influence these choices have on work. Foucault21 posited that
technologies of power and practices of self guide action. Technologies of
power come from outside the person and are typically beyond individual
control, whereas practices of self are internal and driven by a person’s
choices (agency). Relevant to conversations about agency is exploring how
the practices of self (Sandberg’s22 concept of leaning in) are experienced
in light of outside structures (technologies of power). Critical conversa-
tions about women traversing the academic career ladder need to consider
how individual choices are influenced by the context of higher education
and how these choices intersect with decisions regarding work and family.
Foundations of Lean In
The emphasis of this volume is to identify and analyze critical issues facing
women and conceptions of gender in higher education. Key to this work
is considering how gender is constructed and how rhetoric reinforces nar-
row concepts for defining gender. To aid this process, in this chapter we
use Sandberg’s23 concept of lean in and her argument that by leaning in,
women can balance the scales regarding their roles in leadership positions.
At the heart of the concept is the argument that if women stay in the game
and take professional leaps even when they do not feel ready, success will
occur via promotion and career advancement. Yet, a close look at organi-
zations highlights that barriers still exist for women as they move up the
career ladder.
Joan Williams and Rachel Dempsey24 identified four patterns of prob-
lems facing women in the workforce. These include “prove-it-again,” “the
tightrope,” “the maternal wall,” and “the tug of war.”25 The need to con-
tinue to prove individual competency requires women to expend energy
and time in ways their male counterparts do not. Sandberg26 would argue
it is just this type of proving oneself that needs to occur—and that is part
of the rules of the game for advancement. Instead of questioning the rules,
it is assumed that one must play by them.27 The concept of the tightrope,
instead, puts a spotlight on the balancing act of performing within the
expectations of gender. Women are often penalized for acting outside of
their gender when they take on more masculine orientations to leadership,28
whereas men often benefit when they are viewed as more collaborative (a
disposition more often associated with women).29 Choosing to become a
parent presents women with other barriers not faced by men (or at least
encountered differently than men).30 The problem exemplified in the con-
cept of the tug-of-war occurs when women find themselves in conflict with
other women and feel they have to work harder than others since there
may be the perception that there is only space for one woman to succeed.
Ideal worker norms31 define what is considered the model for work—a per-
son who is dedicated to work commitments above personal responsibilities.
Ideal worker norms are particularly prevalent in higher education. Williams
and Dempsey32 offer women strategies for maneuvering through the land-
mines found in the workplace, but like Sandberg,33 the authors take the
perspective of the problem of workplace equity being placed squarely on
individual women. Their focus is on providing women with strategies to
change and adapt themselves versus the workplace changing.
Contemplating the role of agency for women requires attention to how

women are socialized. The socialization of women to gendered roles,34
and the concept of the ideal worker35 reinforce an unequal playing field
of work. Women continue to lag in academic career progression and con-
tinue to “leak” out of the pipeline.36 Even though the issues that lead to
women’s career progression are complex, part of the puzzle that shapes
women’s experiences and how they approach their careers is the integra-
tion (or lack thereof) of work and family. Previous research on work-life
roles in higher education37 point to some of the critical tensions that can
inhibit women from “leaning in” to career advancement and leadership
positions. Choices like opting out of full-time positions to care for children
or choosing not to go up for promotion to full professor in the interest of
maintaining greater balance between work and home can have long term
consequences in terms of women traversing academic career advancement.
Critically missing from these arguments is a broader definition of gender
issues. On the one hand, the binary of advancement of women compared
to men highlights several barriers to advancement that continue to exist.
On the other hand, a focus on a binary versus a continuum or intersection
of identity fails to include issues occurring due to a multifaceted definition
of gender.
What we argue is missing in Sandberg’s38 work is recognition of mas-
culine communities of practice—group norms that define engagement
based on male norms—that are in operation in higher education.39 In
spite of progress, organizational norms and expectations remain built on
ideal worker norms that posit a focus on work (a norm that has been
associated with male perspectives) and the notion of a wife at home car-
ing for personal needs.40 The public (men/work) and private (women/
home) dichotomy sets women up on an unequal playing field. When
women exercise agency and make choices, those choices are not always
real and free choices, but, instead, are choices that are made in light of
organizational constraints. Pushing for change of the system solely on
the role of individual agency leaves unquestioned the role of structures in
reifying hegemonic norms based on a male ideal of work.41 Like industry,
institutions of higher education are gendered organizations42 that include
structures that challenge the myth of colleges being gender-neutral insti-
tutions. It is necessary to look at agency and structure together to find
ways to fully consider the roles and responsibilities of women in higher
education.
Conceptual Model
The role of agency based on individual choices is counterbalanced by
choices limited by structures and rules.43 Structuration theory44 brings the
tension and dualism of individuals and organizations together. The depen-
dent relationship of individuals and created structures emphasizes how
“structures exist only in and through the activities of human agents.”45
Likewise, structures influence individuals’ actions and their exercise of
agency. In the end, the explicit and implicit rules of academe dictate how
faculty members and leaders, in particular women, are judged.46
We also use the work of Michel Foucault47 to understand better the role
of power for individuals as they make choices and the subsequent influence
of these choices on work. Foucault48 questioned the role of power over
individuals as they make choices and the subsequent influence of these ele-
ments on identity. He posited that technologies of power and practices of
self exist, and that these factors create tension. “Technologies of power are
external to self, and exert pressure from the outside, while practices of self
are operated by individuals themselves, who have the agency to utilize strat-
egies of power to manage and affect their constitution as subjects through
recognition of the possible subject positions available.”49 Relevant to con-
versations about agency is exploring how the practices of self (Sandberg’s50
concept of leaning in) are experienced in light of outside structures (tech-
nologies of power). Critical conversations about women progressing on
the academic career ladder need to consider how individual choices are
influenced by the context and structures within higher education and how
these choices intersect with decisions regarding work and family.
Technologies of power51 are built on power structures within the orga-
nization, determine the conduct of individuals, and provide a view of
organizational members as mere objects of transactions. Technologies of
power have increased in institutions of higher education as colleges and
universities seek to meet the demands of the market place, resulting in
greater pressure for faculty and leaders to increase performance. The neo-
liberal slant in higher education52 privileges market outputs and relies on
disembodied workers53 and their focus on work versus family. As individu-
als struggle to position themselves and to create their professional identity,
they must navigate their own agency and sense of self relative to the norms
of the profession and institutional environment. Leaning in is not just a
matter of personal choice and fortitude, it is shaped by organizational fac-
tors and external pressures.
Communities of practice are also an important component to situate

personal choice and perspectives, especially for women in higher educa-
tion. Like technologies of power, communities of practice shape individ-
ual action within a group context, which are typically based on masculine
preferences and cultures.54 A community of practice is a collective of
people who connect around a particular set of norms, expectations,
and ways of doing things.55 The norms that operate in a community of
practice are shaped by history, purpose, and mission. Typically, many
communities of practice are in place simultaneously. Relevant to this dis-
cussion, higher education institutions as workplaces and as a community
of practice are based on a history of people participating in academic
work in particular kinds of ways. Women’s full participation at all levels
in academia has been stymied by history and gender norms that relegate
them to outsider status in the community. Women are likely to encoun-
ter a higher education institution as a workplace community of prac-
tice where gender and ideal worker norms are reinforced.56 Individual
actions are exercised in light of the norms that can limit full and equal
participation.
Gendered expectations in institutions create the context from which a
sense of self emerges. In gendered organizations57 clerical work is viewed
as women’s work,58 whereas management and leadership is viewed as a
job for men.59 Even though there has been an increase in women in fac-
ulty and administrative leadership over time,60 the underlying hierarchical
and bureaucratic structures remain—keeping intact a male stronghold in
organizations.61 The continued gender division of work reinforces hir-
ing practices that privilege men62 and reifies gendered socialization that
support historic preferences for men.63 Here, technologies of power are
stronger than practices of self. As we transition to looking at different
examples in this chapter and in the larger volume of how gender is rei-
fied and practiced at different levels of higher education, the conceptual
model that situates individual action within group and organizational
practices functions as a way to question and critically analyze the roles,
representations, and gendered futures within institutions of higher
education for women. Similar constraints exist for those on the gender
continuum who do not exemplify the standards found in masculine com-
munities of practice.
Examples from Practice
To problematize the role of gender in higher education and to illustrate
the tension between self and structure, we draw on three examples. First,
we review the experiences of women faculty members in STEM degree
programs. We discuss how the masculine communities of practice in these
disciplines create structural power dynamics and “chilly” climates that
make it more difficult for women to feel they have a place. Second, we
discuss the preponderance of women stuck at the associate professor rank
and mid-level leadership positions. Here, we review the cost of emotional
labor for these women.64 Finally, we analyze the challenges faced by high-
profile women leaders in higher education.
A chilly climate for women in STEM Data about the representation of

women in STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math) fields
point to underrepresentation of women at all levels and throughout the
pipeline. Women are underrepresented in undergraduate and graduate
programs, are less likely than their male counterparts to pursue prestigious
postdoctoral experiences, less likely to be hired in a tenure track position,
and underrepresented at the highest ranks of the professoriate as well as
at department chair and dean levels.65 To be sure, there is variation within
STEM fields, with women faring better in life sciences than in physical
sciences, yet their relative underrepresentation remains constant. Further,
the low numbers of women faculty members from historically underrepre-
sented minority groups is even greater. The experiences of women of color
are often lumped with research findings when discussing women in STEM
as little disaggregation of data occurs, which prevents a full portrait of the
chilly climate from emerging.66 At each stage of the pipeline, women in
the STEM fields seem to “leak” out.
Why the lack of women? Why the leaks? In part, the response to these
questions is rooted in climate and cultural contexts that make women
feel on the outside of core structures. The term “chilly climate” was first
used by Roberta Hall and Bernice Sandler67 to describe women’s experi-
ences with isolation and discrimination as undergraduate students in the
classroom. The use of the concept has been extended into other areas of
research related to faculty, staff, and graduate students (e.g., Elizabeth
Litzler, Sheila Edwards Lange, and Suzanne Brainard68). The culture
of scientific knowledge that permeates STEM fields has been described
as competitive, exclusive, and sexist, leaving women to feel unwelcome

and like outsiders.69 The chilly climate is, in part, tied to paradigmatic
beliefs about knowledge creation. Scientific pursuits tend to be associated
with the objective and can minimize the subjective. The chasm between
the objective and subjective can be particularly troublesome for women
because they are often associated with subjectivity, whereas men are associ-
ated with objectivity.70 Science, not just as a discipline, but also as a way of
creating and viewing knowledge, privileges the objective.71
Another element of the chilly climate is ways of viewing work and par-
ticipating in disciplinary contexts. Science as a profession tends toward
devotion and a complete dedication to the pursuit of knowledge. This
level of commitment brings up two issues for consideration in discussions
about women in STEM fields. One, STEM fields that are rooted in objec-
tivism can exclude alternative ways of knowing and subjectivist orienta-
tions that are associated with women’s ways of knowing.72 To be sure,
not all women are subjective and men objective, but scientific structures
and organizational practices can create and essentialize gender binaries.73
And second, the sole focus on science and research pursuits that can char-
acterize research in STEM fields, to the exclusion of other interests, can
leave women out. The call for sole dedication is particularly relevant for
women with children (or those who want to have children) for the per-
ceived incompatibility between being a “scientist” and being a mother.
Science is “greedy” and focused dedication and devotion is privileged;
having children and family responsibilities can conflict with work environ-
ments that prioritize work over family.74 Despite work over the past 30
years to change the chilly climate, the root of the problem engrained in
practice continues as implicit bias goes unexamined.75
Joan Williams’76 concept of the ideal worker norm calls for total dedi-
cation to the job to the exclusion of all else. Such a view is based on the
assumption that people do not have outside pursuits or responsibilities
and that science comes first. Given the biological realities associated with
parenthood, the “either you have a career or you have children” mindset
that is congruent with ideal worker norms has clearly impacted women
to a greater extent than men, given the physical and biological aspects of
maternity.77 Ideal worker norms are part of the cultural milieu that perme-
ates STEM fields, subtly or overtly, and can contribute to chilly climates.
The chilly climate for women in STEM can contribute to women opting
out of the STEM pipeline altogether, or to women opting in to parts of
STEM that are viewed as more suitable to them (e.g., as clinical faculty, lab
managers).78 The net effect of this chilly climate in STEM fields, and other
fields as well, is that it prevents the full participation of women at all levels.
Stuck in the middle as associate professors and midlevel managers Related

to the chilly climate and how women progress in STEM is the career
advancement of women into senior level positions in all areas of higher
education. As indicated previously in this chapter, the representation of
women lessens the higher the faculty or administrative rank. Women get
“stuck in the middle” as middle managers and associate professors. In
part, the pipeline for women into senior and administrative positions are
limited and confounded by the individual choices women make related to
family formation and responsibilities.79 Longitudinal data from two recent
studies suggest that women’s progression is shaped by individual choices
(e.g., having children, choosing to take leave) as well as structural barri-
ers (e.g., division of family labor, promotion rates).80 Women’s progress
to associate level faculty positions has been steady, which in part can be
attributed to the requisite promotion when achieving tenure. That is, for
tenure line faculty, the promotion from assistant to associate professor is
on a timeline and mandatory to stay in the position. The promotion to
full professor, however, is not on a strict timeline and the process is more
subjective in terms of readiness for promotion. The promotion process to
full professor, in particular, is fraught with ambiguity and lack of clarity,
with women and underrepresented minority faculty not faring as well as
men in review processes.81 Recent research that looks at women faculty at
different career stages suggests that promotion to full professor or moving
into more senior administrative positions is not seen as worth the emo-
tional cost and investment involved.82 Avoiding the promotion process or
not seeking advanced positions is one way that women faculty deal with
the scrutiny involved in the whole process.
Another aspect of being stuck in the middle is related to administra-

tive positions and the type of positions that women are “tapped” to do.
Women who have made the move to administration often get stuck in
mid-level positions versus advancing to upper level leadership. For exam-
ple, Kim VanDerLinden83 found that women in community colleges were
disproportionately represented in the middle level ranks, but that they
were participating in professional development activities that contribute to
human capital on par with men. The equity in development of leadership
skills means that women are leaning in and preparing for advancement,
but that other factors prevent their promotion. Vicki Rosser’s84 research
on mid-level administrators found that the quality of work life of mid-level
leaders influences their satisfaction, morale, and their desire to stay in their
positions or leave. The front-line positions of department chair or assis-
tant/associate dean often entail some teaching responsibilities, particularly
at institutions lower in prestige or in Carnegie classification (e.g., commu-
nity colleges, regional institutions).85 As a result, these initial leadership
positions in many ways slow down advancement if too much time and
attention is paid to management versus leadership functions and teaching
versus administration. A prevalent finding in research related to faculty
careers is that the various aspects of faculty work are rewarded differently.
Service, in particular, can create problems when it comes to advancement
to senior level faculty and administrative positions.86 In research universi-
ties, with the teaching, research, and service tripartite of faculty work, ser-
vice work gets overlooked and often goes unrewarded. Research focused
on associate professors suggests that part of the lag in women moving to
full professor is related to disproportionate focus on service—a part of fac-
ulty work that does not get rewarded at the same rate as research or even
teaching.87 A major pathway to promotion to full professor is research, yet
the focus on service can minimize the qualifications needed for promotion
to full professor, which is also an antecedent to senior level administrative
positions.
Linked to service work is the emotional labor women engage in as fac-
ulty members. Bill Tierney and Estela Bensimon labeled this the “smile”
work of academics,88 which falls upon women in advising or in taking on a
mother-type role in departmental work. Managing emotions in the work-
place often falls upon women, which causes added stress post-tenure for
women relative to their male counterparts, as women take up even more
service work.89 This added labor emerges due to a focus on relationships
and emotions within the workplace, and often goes unrecognized. Further,
when the time comes for promotion, this type of emotional labor is not
as highly valued as work associated with finance and strategic vision.90 Yet,
Leslie Gonzales and Rodolfo Rincones91 argued that it is important to
understand how emotional labor is induced by organizational norms and
structures.92 Gendered structures serve to reify the emotional labor of the
academy, which falls heavily on women in mid-level positions.
Another aspect of women moving to senior positions is the type of pre-
paredness they have, or the professional development opportunities they
use to pursue positions when available. Even though it is important to
have people skills and “dress for success” to become a senior leader, these
are not enough to move to the most senior levels of organizational leader-
ship93 Part of the focus of women in mid-level management positions is
the perceived lack of preparedness they have for the rigors of senior level
leadership positions. True, service work and mid-level management help
develop people skills and problem solving, but they do not focus on strat-
egy and big picture thinking related to finance, which are the types of skills
needed to be recognized by search committees for the most senior aca-
demic administrative positions, especially in tough fiscal times.94 Women
have been successful in getting to administrative positions where soft skills
are recognized and rewarded, but in the front line, administrative posi-
tions are often relegated to men due to the perception of them being more
suited for the rigors of work that is strategic and externally oriented.
Combined with the need to gain leadership skills and more strategic
views of organizations, those academics seeking upper level positions are
also often confronted by the need to relocate. Most institutions have lim-
ited senior level positions, so if a woman is poised and ready to move
into one, it may be at a different institution. Mid-level women leaders, in
particular, often delay consideration of advancement based on family con-
siderations and the challenge a move might create for families.95 Further,
women frequently sequence careers to accommodate family needs and
wait until these variables are in place so job needs can be accommodated.96
Sandberg97 might argue making choices to put family before career are the
types of behaviors that must be avoided for women to succeed in senior
leadership positions. The double bind here is that mid-level women lead-
ers may be constrained in their choices to move compared to their male
colleagues, and they may not be gaining the type of leadership experiences
needed for upper level positions when they choose to stay in their mid-
level positions. Mid-level leaders are crucial to effectively managing orga-
nizations, but they are not always recognized as strategic thinkers who can
lead macro level change.
Grabbing the brass ring of leadership For those women who make it to the
top rank of faculty positions, or to positions of administrative leadership,
tradeoffs and tensions continue. Women faculty face a tradeoff between
rank and institutional prestige as promotion is more likely at non-elite or
less prestigious institutions.98 Pointedly, lower prestige institutions, like
community colleges, are more likely to have women presidents (33%)
compared to high-research universities (22%).99 Alexander Haslam and
Michelle Ryan100 coined the concept of the glass cliff to illustrate how
women more often than men were chosen to lead institutions in crisis
and at risk of failure. Women in leadership operate at the margins—at less
prestigious institutions, at institutions in crisis, and at rural and smaller
institutions.
The intersection of work and family with ideal worker norms impacts
women’s career trajectories to leadership positions.101 When women
opt-out for family reasons, they do not keep pace with men in terms of
advancement. Even when equal opportunity policies are in place, like in
Australia, women still do not achieve equity in senior academic positions.
For example, Joanne Pyke102 found that women face conditions that slow
them down in ways that men do not, such as bullying by senior leaders, a
meandering career path due to family responsibilities, and perception that
moving to leadership would prevent them from working with students.
As illustrated, simply having the opportunity to advance is not enough to
overcome contextual and cultural barriers that impede women’s advance-
ment to full professor, or to top level leadership positions. Success can be
achieved, however, when certain conditions are present. An example from
one European university illustrated that key factors for a gendered change
in the professoriate involved a transition within the context and structure
of how the organization supported and promoted women’s work. In this
case, building on informal leadership and creating prioritization within
disciplines with high numbers of full professor openings helped support
the appointment of women, particularly in areas where it was more likely,
given that the fact that the unit had more women in the pipeline.103 When
technologies of power are shifted in ways that also favor women’s advance-
ment, more women are likely to become full professors—the launching
point for administrative leadership.
Louise Morley and Barbara Crossouard104 argued that as institutions
of higher education are becoming increasingly performance-based due to
a pervasive neoliberal agenda, leadership becomes more competitive and
aggressive. Competitive workplaces are ones that women are increasingly
rejecting or resisting. Sandberg105 would argue that women opting out
of workplaces they perceive as unhealthy are taking themselves out of the
game instead of persevering. Combined with managerial dominance is
“disengagement with the dominant values, practices and images of univer-
sity leadership.”106 When women do not see themselves in leadership posi-
tions, and when they face increasing corporatization of academia that does
not align with their practices of self, they do in fact lean out.107 Indeed,
the espoused rules of leading and the rules in practice often collude to
make women feel unwelcome in leadership ranks.108 When constructions
of leadership rely on hegemonic norms based on white, heterosexual men,
any other leader comes up short.
At work here is second generation gender discrimination.109 Differing
from first generation bias, which was intentional in discriminating against
women, second generation gender discrimination is bias that results
from “patterns of interaction, informal norms, networking, mentoring,
and evaluation.”110 The existence of these subtle and invisible forms of
bias creates barriers for women, which are difficult to address by merely
“trying harder.” Susan Treafalt and her colleagues111 found that moving
the needle on gender equity has been modest due to the lack of attention
paid to the deeply embedded second generation biases found in organi-
zational cultures. Their survey of 305 women professionals attending
the Simmons College Women’s Leadership Conference found women
were asked to put work ahead of all else (89%) and that they engaged
in high levels of invisible work (86%). Despite facing judgment on ideal
worker norm and doing more unrewarded work than men, the major-
ity of respondents (59%) “did not opt out of leadership opportunities
due to feeling they did not fit their organization’s model of effective
leadership.”112 Critical to supporting women in gendered organizations
is making them aware of this form of subtle bias. Next, it is important
to have senior men take an active interest in supporting and sponsor-
ing women’s advancement.113 Types of support from peers, family, and
through leadership development all contribute to addressing second
generation bias.114
When second generation bias is not addressed, women lose out on
learning how to become leaders. “People become leaders by internalizing
a leadership identity and developing a sense of purpose.”115 Acquiring the
space to develop an identity that is viewed “leadership-like” and aligning
individually valued purposes with those of the institution often assume
male norms. Herminia Ibarra, Robin Ely, and Deborah Kolb suggest three
actions to support women’s access to leadership positions: “(1) educate
women and men about second-generation gender bias, (2) create safe
‘identity workspaces’ to support transitions to bigger roles; and (3) anchor
women’s development efforts in a sense of leadership purpose rather than
in how women are perceived.”116 Merely learning skills is not enough to
develop as leaders; instead, it is through the creation of a leadership iden-
tity that women can advance. The practices of self that are required for
this type of identity development require attention to the technologies
of power in place,117 particularly in addressing the invisible forms of bias
present in institutional cultures and norms.
Yet, even when they do make it to leadership positions, such as deans and
directors, women report feeling more overwhelmed and less c ompensated
relative to men—even when they are more skilled at building relationships
and working with people.118 Contributing to this feeling of dissatisfaction
is perceptions of roles. Role congruity theory prejudice emerges when
there is incongruity between expected female gender roles and leader-
ship.119 At the root of this type of prejudice is judging women less favor-
ably than men in leadership roles and evaluating women’s leadership less
favorably.120 When leadership roles are conceived of as being best filled
by men, even when equity is espoused, women cannot win. Consider too
how discourse serves to reinforce these norms. Susan Griggs121 used femi-
nist discourse analysis to evaluate a common leadership text in use for an
educational leadership program and found that here too, it reinforced the
notion of male dominance in senior level leadership positions. Likewise,
Kristin Wilson and Elizabeth Cox122 found a masculine hero model was in
place in discourse on community college leaders in articles in the Chronicle
of Higher Education. These male models of leadership reify a singular view
of what it takes to be a leader in higher education, which means that those
who do not fit within this narrow discourse—women, leaders of color,
leaders across the gender continuum—are always outsiders in masculine
communities of practice.
As leaders, women must figure out the rules of the game and then
decide if they want to play by them. “The rules are seldom devised by
women but they must learn them in order to survive in academia.”123
When women resist these rules, they are often penalized.124 Sandberg125
would argue that by leaning in, women can work to effect change. Yet, this
perspective continues to view the issue of women’s equity as an individual
concern versus a collective, organizational issue. As Tanya Fitzgerald aptly
summarized, “the problem of low numbers of women in senior manage-
ment is an organizational problem, yet it is rarely cast as such.”126 Women
seeking the brass ring of college and university leadership positions face
barriers due to embedded, structural discrimination practices that favor
men, harsh evaluation when they act “too much like” a woman or “too
much like” a man, and personal costs associated with navigating tight-
ropes and tugs of war.127
Discussion and Implications for Practice
The review of the examples above highlights how context, structures, and
norms stack against women as leaders. Despite individual agency and acco-
lades accumulated over a career, these examples point to how technologies
of power are often beyond individual control.128 These issues include the
timing of tenure, the emotional labor of service, promotion criteria and
expectations, and the nature of decision making in professional bureau-
cracies. The rejection of an increasingly toxic organizational climate by
women represents, on the one hand, choice that supports practices of
self.129 On the other hand, this “choice” is often a false one as organi-
zational structures and norms that favor men are not accounted for or
considered.130
At the beginning of the faculty pipeline, some hope for equity emerges
since women represent half of beginning faculty members, but this pipeline
begins to leak as the number of women associate professors dips to 42%
before arriving at the lower representation of women holding only 31% of
full professorships.131 A similar portrait holds true on the administrative
career ladder. Half of the Chief Academic Officers (CAO) at community
colleges are women and approximately one-third of four-year colleges
boast a woman CAO,132 giving rise to hope of increasing the number of
women in presidencies. But 65% of current CAOs do not want or are not
sure about seeking a presidency and the predominant reason they give is
that the nature of the work is unappealing.133 One explanation for this can
be gender performance expectations that penalize women who act outside
of ideal worker norms, or who opt out.134
The lean in concept of women trying harder to have it all, particu-
larly when balancing family, work, and tenure and promotion require-
ments, often results in their working harder and sleeping less.135 Here,
the practices of self are a reaction to the technologies of power136 found
in academic organizational structures. Chantell LaPan, Camilla Hodge,
Deidre Peroff, and Karla Henderson137 identified three types of politics
that women face in academic advancement—the politics of higher educa-
tion in charting a career, the politics of gender in dealing with workforce
dynamics, and the politics of caring in desiring both work and family. As
women gain social capital, they navigate the range of academic politics
better. Here, by leaning in, they gain power to help address some of the
structural aspects of the job. Yet, it was the women that were changing and
not the structures or context.138
Mentoring and increased numbers of women in leadership can begin to

create a tipping point for women in college settings.139 Equality in rank or
leadership in higher education, however, remains elusive for women. What
does this say about the way leadership, for administrators and faculty, is cur-
rently structured? Sandberg140 argues that women serve to put limitations
on themselves. Here, notions of individual agency are pervasive. Thus,
if women can increase their agency through their selection of particular
actions, changes will result. Pointedly, the World Bank recently released
a report regarding gender equity and development, the findings of which
highlight the role of women’s agency in improving equity and ultimately
development in third world countries.141 However, history shows that
despite the “choices” women have made, even when they prefer work and
operate as ideal workers, equity in the top echelons of higher education
has not occurred.142 The question remains, is it merely a matter of women
trying harder and making choices that support work, or is there a problem
inherent in the underlying structure and assumptions of academic work?
On the one hand, women can play the gendered games in academic lead-
ership.143 Acker’s case studies illustrate how some women are able to be suc-
cessful at the game when they play by the organizational rules. On the other
hand, when women do not play these games and exit these roles, they end
their leadership ambitions. At work here are the gendered expectations for
academic work.144 But, as noted above, the type of emotional labor done by
many women faculty is not what gains promotion and status.145
It is timely to consider the “women” question in higher education as
opportunities are emerging due to anticipated retirements in leadership
and faculty ranks. Currently, 53% of sitting presidents are 61 or older
and 80% of Chief Academic Officers are over 50.146 Leadership vacan-
cies will be on the increase given the aging of current leaders and their
pending retirement. This anticipation of future openings provides an
ideal time for women to look for advancement in higher education. We
know, however, that increasing women in top faculty ranks or in col-
lege leadership is more than a pipeline issue.147 Is the lack of progress
of academic women simply due to the fact that they have not leaned in,
or are structural issues of college organization preventing women from
seeking advancement? Personal choices are used to explain and pardon
exclusive masculine communities of practice. We argue that the technol-
ogies of power148 and the firm roots of gendered organizations that favor
men both create structures and norms that preclude equity.149 Instead,
women are often blamed for opting out and not trying hard enough.
Conversations about women in leadership need reframing. The advan-

tage of the popularity of Sandberg’s 2013 book is the level of dialogue
that resulted. Sandberg’s work and offshoot initiatives like lean in circles
have raised questions about double standards that confront women, how
buying into these conceptions and expectations creates a different set of
options for them, and how narrowly defined the notion of leadership
advancement becomes when based on a singular white male norm. By
questioning assumptions and asking different questions, the problem of
gendered leadership in higher education can be investigated from new
vantage points that consider personal choices in light of organizational
practices.
Conclusion
The conversations begun as a result of the focus on Lean In150 provide
leverage in the ongoing dialogue on the role of second generation bias
and corresponding structural barriers to the advancement of women in
higher education.151 Though this outcome may not have been intentional,
the critique of Sandberg’s writing provided feminist writers a space in
which to respond. For example, bell hooks was quick to point out that
“Sandberg’s refusal to do anything but give slight mention to racialized
class differences undercuts the notion that she has a program that speaks
to and for all women.”152 hooks identified the lack of attention to intersec-
tions for women in general and pointed out the risk inherent when white
women serve as the model for all women’s issues. As scholars, we need
to leverage the attention generated by the enterprise of Lean In to actu-
ally offer change. Change begins with acknowledgement of the invisible
organizational biases present and altering structures currently in place for
all women.153
As a way to think critically about women’s career advancement in higher
education, our discussion relies on the conceptual model that situates the
personal within organizational boundaries. In particular, structuration,154
technologies of power,155 and masculine communities of practice156 pro-
vide ways to identify points of intersection between individual responses to
existing organizational structures and the inverse—the influence of indi-
viduals on organizations. By problematizing the notion that individual
agency alone can help overcome the lack of gender equity in leadership
positions, we found that insidious, embedded cultural norms that penal-

ize women continue to serve as a major barrier to their advancement in
higher education. There is a lack of a feminist influence on organizational
norms. Investigating the structural impediments to advancement and the
role gendered organizations157play in the lack of women’s advancement
will stimulate deeper dialogue on the issue of gender equity for academic
women. The motivation to pursue this volume was to contribute to ongo-
ing research, theory, policy, and practice related to how different groups
of women in higher education stand at the critical intersection of per-
sonal agency and organizational structures. Without critical perspectives
on adopted gendered organization perspectives, progress to close gender
gaps will remain sluggish.
The slow advancement of women at upper levels of higher education
continues to stymie colleges and universities wanting to diversify their fac-
ulty and administrative ranks. To be sure, there has been progress with
regard to greater levels of participation in senior academic and leader-
ship ranks, yet true equity and parity have been elusive. The hope for this
chapter and the larger volume is to examine how the individual, including
the inclination to lean in (or not), and the organization interact to create
opportunity and desire for the career advancement of women in higher
education. It is critical to question long-held cultural norms in higher
education, the assumptions of who can and cannot lead, and how leaders
are developed and judged. Without these changes, institutions of higher
education will continue to miss out on the talents of all women, leaders
of color, and others who do not fit the narrowly defined conceptions of
success.
Notes
1. Sandberg, Lean in: Women, Work, and the Will to Lead.
2. National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), Digest of
Educational Statistics: 2015.
3. Ibid.
4. Kowalski, McCord, Petersen, Young, and Ellerson, American
School Superintendent: 2010 Decennial Study.
5. NCES, Digest of Educational Statistics: 2015.
6. Modern Language Association, Standing Still: The Associate
Professor Survey.
8. Ibid.
9. Curtis, “Persistent Inequity: Gender and Academic Employment”;
Hargens and Long, “Demographic Inertia and Women’s
Representation Among Faculty in Higher Education.”
10. Acker, “Hierarchies, Jobs, Bodies: A Theory of Gendered

Organizations.”
11. Costello, “Women in the Academy: The Impact: Culture, Climate
and Policies on Female Classified Staff”; Iverson, “Glass Ceilings
and Sticky Floors: Women and Advancement in Higher Education.”
12. Hymowitz and Schellhardt. “The Glass Ceiling: Why Women

Can’t Seem to Break the Invisible Barrier that Blocks them from
the Top Jobs.”
13. U.S. Department of Labor. Glass Ceiling Commission.
15. Ibid., 103.
16. Ibid.
17. Acker, “Inequality Regimes: Gender, Class, and Race in

Organizations”; Billot, “Women’s leadership through agency.”
18. Giddens, The constitution of society.

Organizations”; Acker, “Inequality Regimes: Gender, Class, and
Race in Organizations.”
20. Foucault, “The Subject and Power.”
21. Ibid.
23. Ibid.
24. Williams and Dempsey, What Works for Women at Work: Four

Patterns Working Women Need to Know.
25. Ibid., xxi.
27. Acker, “Gendered Games in Academic Leadership.”
28. Blackmore and Sachs, Performing and Reforming Leaders: Gender,
Educational Restructuring, and Organizational Change.
29. Eddy, “Leading Gracefully: Gendered Leadership at Community
Colleges.”
30. Mason, Wolfinger, and Goulden, Do Babies Matter? Gender and
Family in the Ivory Tower.
What to do About it.

34. West and Zimmerman, “Doing Gender.”
Family in the Ivory Tower.
37. Lester and Sallee, Establishing the Family-friendly Campus: Models
for Effective Practice; Mason, Wolfinger, and Goulden, Do Babies
Matter? Gender and Family in the Ivory Tower; Ward and Wolf-
Wendel, Academic Motherhood: How Faculty Manage Work and
Family.
39. Burkinsaw, Higher Education, Leadership and Women Vice
Chancellors: Fitting into Communities of Practice of Masculinities.

Organizations.”

Organizations.”
43. Morgan, Imagines of Organizations.
44. Giddens, The Constitution of Society.
45. Ibid., 256.
46. Frechette, “Women, Leadership, and Equality in Academe: Moving
Beyond Double Binds.”
47. Foucault, “The Subject and Power.”
48. Ibid.
49. Ibid., 208.
51. Foucault, Care of the Self: Volume III of the History of Sexuality.
52. Saunders, “Neoliberal Ideology and Public Higher Education in
the United States.”

Organizations.”
55. Wenger, Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning, and Identity.

57. Acker, “Gendered Organizations and Intersectionality: Problems
and Possibilities.”
58. Costello, “Women in the Academy: The Impact of Culture,

Climate and Policies on Female Classified Staff”; Iverson, “Glass
ceilings and sticky floors: Women and advancement in higher
education.”
59. Kanter, Men and Women at Work; Williams, Unbending Gender:
Why Family and Work Conflict and What to do About it.
62. Glazer-Raymo, Unfinished Agendas: New and Continuing Gender
Challenges in Higher Education.
63. Sallee, “The Ideal Worker or the Ideal Father: Organizational

Structures and Culture in the Gendered University.”
64. Gonzales and Rincones, “Using Participatory Action Research and
Photo Methods to Explore Higher Education Administration as
Emotional Endeavor”; Tunquz, “In the Eye of the Beholder:
Emotional Labor in Academia Varies with Tenure and Gender.”
65. Rosser, The Science Glass Ceiling: Academic Women Scientists and
the Struggle to Succeed.
66. Johnson, “Women of Color in Science, Technology, Engineering,
and Mathematics (STEM).”
67. Hall and Sandler, The Classroom Climate: A Chilly one for Women?
68. Litzler, Lange, and Brainard, “Climate for Graduate Students in
Science and Engineering Departments.”
69. De Welde and Laursen, “The Glass Obstacle Course: Informal and
Formal Barriers for Women Ph. D. Students in STEM Fields.”
70. Valian, Why So Slow? The Advancement of Women.
71. Harding, “The Instability of the Analytical Categories of Feminist
Theory.”
72. Belenky, Clinchy, Goldgerger, and Tarule, Women’s Ways of

Knowing: The Development of Self, Voice, and Mind.
73. Harding, “The Instability of the Analytical Categories of Feminist
Theory.”
74. Coser, Greedy Institutions: Patterns of Undivided Commitment;

Unbending Gender: Why Family and Work Conflict and What to do
About it.
75. Williams, Alon, and Bornstein, “Beyond the ‘Chilly Climate’:

Eliminating Bias Against Women and Fathers in Academe.”
77. Ward and Wolf-Wendel, Academic Motherhood: How Faculty

Manage Work and Family.
78. Easterly and Ricard, “Conscious Efforts to end Unconscious Bias:
Why Women Leave Academic Research.”
79. Chliwniak, Higher Education Leadership: Analyzing the Gender
Gap; Ward and Wolf-Wendel, Academic Motherhood: How Faculty
Family in the Ivory Tower.; Ward and Wolf-Wendel, Academic
Motherhood: How Faculty Manage Work and Family.
81. Menges and Exum, “Barriers to the Progress of Women and

Minority Faculty.”
82. Ward and Wolf-Wendel, Academic Motherhood: How Faculty

83. VanDerLinden, Career advancement and leadership development of
community college administrators.
84. Rosser, “A National Study on Midlevel Leaders in Higher

Education: The Unsung Professionals of the Academy.”
85. Garza Mitchell and Eddy, “In the Middle: A Gendered View of
Career Pathways of Mid-level Community College Leaders.”
86. Misra, Lundquist, Holmes, and Aguimavritis, “The Ivory Ceiling
of Service Work.”
87. Ibid., Modern Language Association, Standing Still: The Associate
Professor Survey.
88. Tierney and Bensimon, Promotion and Tenure: Community and
Socialization in Academe, 83.
89. Tunquz, “In the Eye of the Beholder: Emotional Labor in

Academia Varies with Tenure and Gender.”
90. Calantuono, No Ceilings, No Walls: What Women Haven’t Been
Told About Leadership from Career-start to the Corporate Boardroom.
91. Gonzales and Rincones, “Using Participatory Action Research

and Photo Methods to Explore Higher Education Administration
as Emotional Endeavor.”
93. Aguirre, Women and Minority Faculty in the Academic Workplace:
Recruitment, Retention, and Academic Culture.
94. Calantuono, No Ceilings, No Walls: What Women Haven’t Been
Told About Leadership from Career-start to the Corporate
Boardroom.
95. VanDerLinden, Career Advancement and Leadership Development
of Community College Administrators.
Colleges.”
99. American Council on Education [ACE]. The American College
President: 2012 edition.
100. Haslam and Ryan, “The Road to the Glass Cliff: Differences in
the Perceived Suitability of Men and Women for Leadership
Positions in Succeeding and Failing organizations.”
101. Kachchaf, Ko, Hodari, and Ong, “Career-Life Balance for Women
of Color: Experiences in Science and Engineering Academia.”
102. Pyke, “Women, Choice and Promotion or Why Women Are Still
a Minority in the Professoriate.”
103. O’Connor, “Understanding Success: A Case Study of Gendered
Change in the Professoriate.”
104. Morley and Crossouard, “Gender in the Neoliberalised Global
Academy: The Affective Economy of Women and Leadership in
South Asia.”
106. Blackmore, “‘Wasting Talent’? Gender and the Problematics of
Academic Disenchantment and Disengagement with Leadership,”
86.
107. Eddy and Ward, “Lean In or Opt out: Career Pathways of

Academic Women.”
108. Morley, “The Rules of the Game: Women and the Leaderist Turn
in Higher Education.”
109. Ibarra, Ely, and Kolb, “Women rising: The Unseen Barriers”;
Sturm, “Second Generation Employment Discrimination: A
Structural Approach”; Trefalt, Merrill-Sands, Kolb, Wilson, and

Carter, “Closing the Women’s Leadership Gap: Who Can Help?”
110. Sturm, “Second Generation Employment Discrimination: A

Structural Approach,” 458.
111. Trefalt, Merrill-Sands, Kolb, Wilson, and Carter, “Closing the
Women’s Leadership Gap: Who Can Help?”
112. Ibid., 3.
113. Thomas, Defining a Successful Leadership Pathway: Women in
Academia and the Role of Institutional Support.
115. Ibarra, Ely, and Kolb, “Women Rising: The Unseen Barriers,” 62
(italics in original).
116. Ibid., 63.
117. Foucault, Care of the Self: Volume III of the History of Sexuality
118. Morris and Laipple, “How Prepared are Academic Administrators?
Leadership and Job Satisfaction within US Research Universities.”
119. Eagly and Karau, “Role Congruity Theory of Prejudice Toward
Female Leaders,” 573.
120. Ibid.
121. Griggs, Invisible Ink: An Analysis of Meaning Contained in
Gender, Race, Performance, and Power Discourses.
122. Wilson and Cox, “A Discourse Analysis of Portrayals of

Community College Leadership in the ‘Chronicle’.”
123. Fitzgerald, Women Leaders in Higher Education: Shattering the
Myths, 78.
124. Tedrow and Rhoads, “A Qualitative Study of Women’s

Experiences in Community College Leadership Positions.”
126. Fitzgerald, Women Leaders in Higher Education: Shattering the
Myths, 112.
129. Ibid.
130. Ward and Wolf-Wendel, “Choice and Discourse in Faculty

Careers: Feminist Perspectives on Work and Family”; Beddoes &
Pawley, “Different People Have Different Priorities”: Work-
Family Balance, Gender, and the Discourse of Choice.”

132. American Council on Education [ACE]. The CAO Census: A
National Profile of Chief Academic Officers.
133. Ibid.
134. Easterly and Ricard, “Conscious Efforts to end Unconscious

Bias: Why Women Leave Academic Research.”
135. Acker, “Sleepless in Academia.”
137. LaPan, Hodge, Peroff, and Henderson. “Female Faculty in

Higher Education. “The Politics of Hope.””
139. Astin and Leland. Women of Influence, Women of Vision: A Cross-
generational Study of Leaders and Social Change; Glazer-Raymo,
Shattering the Myths: Women in Academe.
141. World Bank, World development report 2012: Gender equality and
development.
142. ACE, The American College President: 2012 edition.
143. Acker, “Gendered Games in Academic Leadership.”
144. Acker and Dillabough, “Women ‘Learning to Labour’ in the
“Male Emporium”: Exploring Gendered Work in Teacher
Education.”
145. Dobele, Rundle-Thiele, and Kopanidis, “The Cracked Glass

Ceiling: Equal Work but Uneven Status.”
146. ACE, The American College President: 2012 edition; ACE, The
CAO Census: A National Profile of Chief Academic Officers.
151. Ibarra, Ely, and Kolb, “Women Rising: The Unseen Barriers”;
Sturm, “Second Generation Employment Discrimination: A
Structural Approach”; Trefalt, Merrill-Sands, Kolb, Wilson, and
Carter, “Closing the Women’s Leadership Gap: Who Can Help?”
152. hooks, “Dig Deep: Beyond Lean In,” para. 25.
CHAPTER 3
Finding their Own Voice: Women’s

Leadership Rhetoric
Tehmina Khwaja
The understanding of leadership as a masculine construct has meant that

women are in uncharted territory when they enter any arena as leaders.1
Academic leadership is also gendered, as the thought of the university
leader or president is often accompanied by a default male image in the
common imagination, with women only figuring if the qualifier “female”
or “woman” is added. As an example, when Drew Faust, the first woman
to lead Harvard asserted that she was a president and not a woman presi-
dent, she challenged the very construction of positional leadership in
higher education.2
Higher education leadership in the United States has traditionally been,
and continues to be, the purview of white men. Over the past 20 years,
however, the number of women presidents has increased, with women
now constituting 26 % of all university presidents, their numbers ranging
from 22 % at doctorate-granting institutions to 33 % at community col-
leges.3 Currently, no information is available in national leadership surveys
on leaders identifying as other than man or woman.
Language is an important aspect of the social construction of reality,4
because words have the power to construct and reify social phenomena,
T. Khwaja (*)
Islamabad, Pakistan

42 T. KHWAJA
including gender roles. Studying rhetoric can provide clues to presidential

leadership styles and the institutions they lead. The focus of this chapter
is the study of leadership rhetoric of academic leaders to gain a better
understanding of how women’s approaches to a leadership role that has
traditionally been the exclusive domain of men is reflected in the language
they employ when addressing their stakeholders and campus members.
The research project that provides the basis for this chapter explored the
following question: To what extent and in what ways is the inaugural
address rhetoric used by female and male presidents leading research uni-
versities with very high research activity gendered? As illustrated by the
chapters in this volume, this chapter also argues that women’s numbers
may have increased in higher education, yet challenges still remain for
women in navigating cultures that are rooted in male norms, and these
include male-normed rhetoric and discourses. This chapter focuses on the
critical issue of higher education institutions as gendered organizations,
with particular attention to leader rhetoric as a site of the reflection and
production of gendered higher education institutions. Language plays a
fundamental role in the reification of gender roles and leadership roles
in academic organizations5; therefore, this chapter highlights the rhetoric
used by female and male academic leaders.
Literature Review
Despite the role language plays in the reification of gender and leader-
ship roles, scant scholarly attention has been paid to the intersection
of academic leadership, gender, and rhetoric. Leadership is a masculine
construct in the English language,6 and since the literature was tradition-
ally written largely by and about men, this historical representation also
strengthened and reified the concept as a masculine one. However, leader-
ship literature has evolved to include orientations that are more inclusive
of different ways of leading.7 Women writing from the feminist standpoint
have contributed greatly to the relative shift in the gendered discourse8;
however, the lack of parity between the sexes in leadership positions, scant
information on leaders identifying as other than men or women, as well
as divergent experiences of men and women leaders, point to the need for
more research and work on the intersection between gender and leader-
ship. In any conversation about critical issues related to gender and higher
education, leadership experiences of individuals with non-dominant gen-
der identities need to be highlighted from various perspectives. This chap-
FINDING THEIR OWN VOICE: WOMEN’S LEADERSHIP RHETORIC 43
ter provides the perspective of discourse analysis to explore rhetoric as the

site for the reflection as well as the production of gender inequality.
Gender is socially constructed through exaggeration of differences
between men and women in all aspects of life including dress, speech,
behavior, and the division of labor both in and outside of the home.9 Once
women enter the workforce that is socially constructed as a masculine
sphere, they encounter glass ceilings and glass cliffs.10 Women face unique
challenges and unfavorable evaluation as leaders (or potential leaders)
owing to the stereotyping of gender and leadership roles, and the incon-
sistency between the stereotypes, whereas men are not as heavily penalized
for adopting more feminine styles.11 For example, the social construction
of gender roles places aspiring women leaders in a double bind: since lead-
ership is masculine, women cannot be leaders, and those who do lead are
not really women.12 These binds present special challenges for women
leaders who have to justify and legitimize their leader status as well as their
femininity.13
The attribution of gender to leadership has meant that men and women
are often believed and expected to lead in styles that align with their gender
roles, even though research continues to find conflicting evidence on these
gender differences,14 and new research on the gender spectrum is increas-
ingly making these dichotomies irrelevant and obsolete. Some scholars
have found evidence that akin to the gender spectrum itself, female and
male college presidents’ leadership styles are not dichotomous but can be
placed on a continuum.15 Scholars like Nidiffer have emphasized an inte-
grated model of leadership that combines leadership competencies often
associated with feminine and masculine leaders as those most suitable for
academic leadership requirements in the twenty-first century.16
Research on women leaders in higher education continues to sug-
gest that women find it difficult to lead authentically in academic institu-
tions.17 Presidential leadership is fraught with challenges for anyone, but
for women, gendered notions of leadership and femininity create hurdles
in achieving legitimacy.18 Especially critical in establishing legitimacy as
a leader is the beginning of the presidential tenure when new leaders,
particularly women, feel that they have to prove that they are qualified
for the job, one aspect of which is overcoming stereotypical beliefs about
women.19 Scholars like Chliwniak hoped that with more women in visible
positions of authority such as presidencies, patriarchal structures of aca-
deme would begin to break down.20 Yet, representation and equity are dif-
ferent constructs. Increased numbers alone are not enough to indicate the
44 T. KHWAJA
full integration of women into the echelons of higher education leader-

ship, especially at the senior levels. Looking at rhetoric and discourse helps
to highlight how culture and context shape the experience of women and
men in the workplace and as leaders. A critical look goes beyond numbers,
looking at data that includes diverse sources, including language and pub-
lic rhetoric. With the relative increase in the number of women leading
research universities in recent years, scholars can begin to probe questions
about academic leaders’ role in questioning, problematizing, and chang-
ing patriarchal and hierarchical cultures through rhetoric.
Burke posited that men and women use language differently, with
women’s expression generally communicating their “social subordina-
tion” manifesting in their choice of vocabulary, intonation, and the fre-
quency and volubility with which they speak in groups. 21 These differences
between men and women are not innate, and the sexes are, in fact, condi-
tioned to use language differently in accordance with their socially accept-
able gender roles.22 Studying leaders’ use of language is critical, as evident
from Fairhurst and Sarr’s assertion, “Leadership is a language game, one
that many do not know that they are playing.”23 How leaders, especially
women, use language can help or hinder them in their efforts to lead.
Research universities were the focus for this study because they possess
power and influence in the field of higher education, serve as models for
other institutions that are considered lower in the institutional hierarchy,
and have a large impact on society at large.24 The influence of research
universities on society includes their positions on gender equality. Instead
of leading the way in progressive gender policy, research universities—
like the larger society—have historically resisted welcoming women and
minorities as equals, and have been slow to accept gender as an issue, and
change in response.25
Focusing on the current discourse at the research university level helps
establish what the future of higher education leadership might look like as
research universities model options. Acker argued that organizations are
gendered, and built around the “disembodied worker” as the ideal worker
“who exists only for work.”26 Academic organizations, including research
universities, are also gendered organizations as they operate around this
outdated concept.27 Since academic leaders work in a gendered context, it
is important to study whether the rhetoric at these organizations perpetu-
ates and legitimates the same. Therefore, this project focused on explor-
ing how leaders at research universities use rhetoric in their inaugural
addresses, and whether their rhetoric reflects and reifies their gendered
context. Rhetoric offers a critical perspective on gender in higher educa-

tion and helps complete the picture of how women and men use discourse
in different ways to talk about current issues, frame topics, and plan for
the future.
Research Approach
The research reported in this chapter used the discourse analysis frame-
work offered by Gee,28 in combination with the feminist poststructural
discourse analysis approach of Allan,29 to come up with a more compre-
hensive discourse analysis framework to identify gendered discourses in
inaugural addresses by presidents of research universities. Gee defined dis-
course analysis as “the study of language-in-use.”30 For Gee, context is
critical to giving and receiving information. Gee emphasized that language
is used to “make or build things in the world” through seven “building
tasks”: significance, practices, identities, relationships, politics, connec-
tions, and sign systems and knowledge.31
Allan’s approach to discourse analysis is grounded in feminist post-
structuralism32 (see also Chapter 5 in this volume by Iverson and Allan).
Allan’s discourse analysis approach relies on the ways in which “language
is socially constituted and shaped by an interplay between texts, readers,
and larger cultural context rather than carrying any kind of fixed or inher-
ent meaning that can be ‘discovered.’”33 Combining Gee’s and Allan’s
approaches to discourse analysis allowed for a more comprehensive lens to
identify gendered language in the speeches, and analyze the language in
light of the context in which it was delivered. Specifically, Allan’s feminist
poststructural approach allowed me to analyze the discourse contained in
the speeches with a gender lens.
To ensure a similar context for the speeches, and to focus on the institu-
tion type that serves as a model for others, the study was limited to research
universities, specifically those described by the Carnegie Classification of
Institutions of Higher Education as research universities with very high
research activity (this classification has since been restored to the earlier
R1 category).34 To further narrow down the pool, only those research
universities were selected that have had at least one female president over
the 20-year time period to which the study was delimited, 1994–2014. Only
publicly available speeches were included in this study and were located
using the search engine Google. The data consisted of the texts of 34
inaugural speeches: 21 by women and 13 by men. The presidents included
46 T. KHWAJA
in this study represent 22 research universities, 15 of them public and

seven private.
Gender and Leadership: Rhetorical Expressions

Several findings emerged that point to the gendered nature of the rhetoric
in inaugural addresses by presidents in the gendered organizational con-
text of high profile research universities. Even though the speeches were
very similar in their content, the rhetoric employed by men and women
was different in subtle ways. The use of Allan’s feminist poststructural
discourse analysis approach helped surface differences that might have
been otherwise missed. Three main themes guide the discussion about
gendered rhetoric by leaders of research universities: guarded language,
disembodied rhetoric, and scant feminist activism.
Guarded Language In the speeches analyzed, women presidents were

more likely to use indirect and metaphorical language, whereas men spoke
in a more direct manner. Women were also more likely to speak about
others rather than themselves. Any treatment of feminist issues was done
indirectly using metaphors and stories, and none of the presidents men-
tioned personal adversity due to race or gender.
Many presidents included in this study are the first women to lead their
universities. However, they rarely pointed out their status as pioneers and
what that might mean for higher education leadership. The few exceptions
observed were not overt but indirect references to their subject positions
as women who have overcome societal and organizational structures to
reach high profile positions of authority. Therefore, when Harvard’s Drew
Faust, in her inaugural address, praised universities for their malleability,
she surreptitiously slipped in a reference to her own status as the first
woman president at Harvard:
In the past half century, American colleges and universities have shared in a
revolution, serving as both the emblem and the engine of the expansion of
citizenship, equality and opportunity—to blacks, women, Jews, immigrants,
and others who would have been subjected to quotas or excluded altogether
in an earlier era. My presence here today—and indeed that of many others
on this platform—would have been unimaginable even a few short years
ago. Those who charge that universities are unable to change should take
note of this transformation, of how different we are from universities even

of the mid 20th century.35
Faust’s reference to herself was indirect in the words “my presence here
today,” and implied rather than stated her status as the first female presi-
dent of Harvard. Even this subtle reference to her pioneer status is con-
cealed in a discussion of the defense of higher education institutions.
Indeed, the subject of this excerpt is the American university, not gender
or race equity. In my sample, Faust was not the only pioneer woman presi-
dent at her university. Nevertheless, Faust at least indirectly referred to her
identity as a leader; many others such as University of Virginia’s Teresa
Sullivan, University of Michigan’s Mary Sue Coleman, Shirley Tilghman
of Princeton, Susan Hockfield of Massachusetts Institute of Technology
(MIT), to name a few, have all been the first women to lead their insti-
tutions. However, none of them felt compelled to point out their sta-
tus as the first woman president at their institution. The presidents who
chose not to focus on their pioneer status perhaps did so in an attempt
to avoid the “woman president” label, much like Drew Faust did in her
media interviews immediately following her appointment as president
of Harvard.36 This avoidance strategy in itself illustrates the challenges
women face as leaders, as they find themselves making choices that men
never have to make.
In contrast to women presidents, men presidents were more likely to
talk directly about themselves and any challenges they may have faced. For
example, Mark Schlissel of the University of Michigan shared his struggles
as a student:
I did not grow up in a wealthy family. During my freshman year of college

I travelled home every weekend to stock shelves and work as a cashier at a
supermarket to help pay for school.
With income from work-study jobs, and with help from scholarships,
need-based aid and student loans, I graduated on time from an outstanding
university with an education and set of experiences that changed my life.37
As this example illustrates, in the sampled speeches, men presidents more

easily and directly talked about themselves and any adversity they may
have faced, while women talked more about others than themselves, and
used guarded language when they did so.
48 T. KHWAJA
Furthermore, although both female and male presidents told personal

stories about how they were able to overcome financial impediments,
there was no mention of barriers due to gender or race identity. The lack
of focus on gender and race indicates that these are still taboo topics to
discuss in a high profile situation like the inaugural address, pointing to
the continuation of gendered and racist structures in higher education
that inhibit discourses of intersectionality. Also infrequent is a focus on
leaders’ identities as people who have lives outside of work, a theme I
discuss next.
Disembodied Rhetoric in Gendered Organizational Cultures An over-

whelming majority of the presidents included in this study are married or
have been married, and most have at least one child. Of the 34 presidents
included in this study, 15 mentioned their spouse’s name in their speeches.
Of the 15, only five were men, Lee Bollinger and Mark Schlissel of the
University of Michigan, University of Connecticut’s Michael Hogan,
Stony Brook’s Samuel Stanley, and Rafael Reif of Massachusetts Institute
of Technology. Lee Bollinger’s homage to his wife, Jean, deserves high-
lighting as he went beyond just thanking her for her role in his success but
provided social commentary on how social structures are biased against
women:
It is only fair that I acknowledge today that my taking this position imposes
inevitably burdens on Jean, especially on her efforts to develop her own
career as an artist. And so I say: For resisting a world that is too slow to catch
up with our ideals of social fairness, I am deeply admiring. For patiently and
graciously enduring some of what we cannot change, I am empathetic. And
for voluntarily embracing with enthusiasm and elegance so many parts of my
life, I am forever grateful.38
Bollinger’s thoughtful tribute to his spouse was a rare instance in the

speeches included in this study. Still more significant, and exceptional, is
the framing of gender inequality in the context of his own family life. He
was essentially communicating here that he has seen the social unfairness
to women up close, and acknowledging the role his spouse had played in
who he was as a leader.
The only president in a same-sex relationship in the sample for this
study was Denice Denton of the University of California at Santa Cruz.
Denton named her long-time partner in her inaugural address alongside
her family:
I am very grateful for the support I’ve received from my family, academic
mentors, and many friends over the years. I want to acknowledge espe-
cially my partner Gretchen Kalonji, the director of International Strategy
Development at UCOP, who is in the audience here today.
My mother, Carolyn, who was a single mom supporting three kids as a high
school math teacher, also served as a great role model, as have many others
in my life, to whom I want to express my deepest gratitude.39
In the sample for this study, Denton was not just the only president to
proclaim her identity as a lesbian, but also the only president to mention a
partner who was not a spouse.
The mention of family was more common than the naming of the
spouse or partner since 23 of the 34 presidents, 15 women and eight men,
made references to their family, albeit some in more detail than others.
For example, University of Pennsylvania’s Amy Gutmann introduced her
family in her address in these words:
Without the love of my immediate family, I would not be here today. I

am proud of my husband, Michael Doyle, and our wonderful daughter,
Abigail Gutmann Doyle. I also proudly bear the name Gutmann. It honors
my parents, Beatrice and Kurt Gutmann. They instilled in me a great love
of learning, a commitment to defending the dignity of all people, and the
confidence to pursue my dreams.40
Gutmann’s words convey the significance of her family in her personal and
professional life, as they participate in shaping her as a leader.
Recent male presidents also mentioned their families and their role in
supporting them as a leader. For example, Mark Schlissel of the University
of Michigan, who followed Mary Sue Coleman, acknowledged his family:
I must also thank my spouse, Monica Schwebs, and our four children who
are here today—Darren, Elise, Gavin, and Madeline.
I have somehow managed to maintain Monica’s love and support, while too
often putting her in the position of trailing spouse. She is an accomplished
attorney, a devoted mother and a profoundly supportive partner.
And to make up for those distant days when her much-too-serious son
would not acknowledge her presence at the back of the classroom on par-
ents’ day, I offer a very public “Hi, Mom!” and thank my mother, Lenore.
50 T. KHWAJA
She and my father Aaron were a constant source of encouragement for an

unusual kid who liked school so much that he never left.41
Like his predecessors at Michigan, Schlissel acknowledged his family and

spouse, and their role in his success. Like Bollinger, Schlissel commented
on the constraints his spouse has faced because of the demands of his
career.
Most presidents such as Barbara Snyder of Case Western Reserve
University made fleeting mention of their families. Snyder’s predecessor,
Edward Hundert, also mentioned his family briefly without naming his
spouse or children. There were others who did not mention spouses, part-
ners, or families at all. The inclusion of the family and spouses in their
identity by leaders is significant as it points to a resistance to the idea of
the ideal “disembodied worker” norm,42 which is prevalent in academic
institutions (also see Chapter 6 by Lester and Sallee in this volume). For
the leader to challenge this hegemonic ideal worker norm sets the tone for
the organization’s employees.
The analysis of the speeches indicates that some presidents do not men-
tion their family and/or spouse, implying complete devotion to their lead-
ership role. Such leaders are unwittingly perpetuating the disembodied
(male) worker norm that assumes an ideal but imaginary worker who is
completely devoted to work and has no interests outside of it.43 The exam-
ples of detailed mention of family and spouses quoted above are excep-
tions rather than the rule, and even though these examples give reason to
hope that higher education leaders are distancing themselves from the dis-
embodied worker label, the prevalence of rhetoric that gives no indication
of the leaders’ lives outside of work raises concerns that the ideal worker is
very much the de rigueur.
The wide range of focus on leaders’ families is likely a personal choice;
however, interestingly, all presidents at the same institution such as the
University of Michigan and MIT chose to dwell on their family lives while
both presidents from Harvard, for example, did not mention their families
at all. This observation points to organizational cultures that may or may
not be conducive to the inclusion of family and a life outside of work in
the leader’s identity.
The hegemonic ideal worker norm is perpetuated by leaders through
disembodied rhetoric in which they present themselves as people who
exist only for work, as well as when they fail to challenge the norm in their
rhetoric. Connected to the dearth of challenging male norms is the scant
attention to feminist activism in the speeches, a theme explored next.
Scant Feminist Activism The inaugural address is a rhetorical situation44

that presidents can use to establish themselves as leaders, and bring up
issues to put on the institutional agenda during their tenure. Not all
presidents took advantage of this situation. This chance for activism and
advocacy is particularly critical in challenging gendered and racist struc-
tures that prevent women and minority participants from advancing in
academia. Even though presidents rarely engaged in overt feminist activ-
ism rhetoric—and completely avoided discourses of race—those who did
take advantage of this platform articulated it subtly, again using guarded
language. Consider, for example, University of Pennsylvania’s Amy
Gutmann’s assertion when she lamented that Penn never produced a US
president apart from William Henry Harrison who had died soon after
taking office: “One day, I predict, Penn will claim a far wiser president.
And I know that we will all be proud of her!”45 To casually slip in her to
refer to a future US president is a subtle maneuver to engage in feminist
activism. Linguistic cues such as these convey a possible social reality to
the audience, in this case an image of a woman president of the United
States, for which there is no historical precedent.
University of Michigan’s Lee Bollinger, who has been cited above, also
used subtle language to challenge the status quo that has produced unfair
structures for women.46 To critique gendered structures while referring to
his wife was a powerful way to communicate that he had seen this social
injustice at home and that he cared very deeply about challenging and
ending it. More practical feminist activism is evident in MIT’s Charles
Vest’s 1991 speech:
We must double and redouble our efforts to attract the brightest and best
from all races, both women and men, not only to our undergraduate pro-
gram, but to our graduate school and to our faculty…
As one step, we will begin implementing during the coming weeks a program
proposed by the Equal Opportunity Committee to recruit more women to
our faculty. And we will reaffirm and reinvigorate our policies and programs
for bringing more underrepresented minority members to our faculty. As
we succeed, and in order to succeed, with these and other efforts, we must
work to ensure that MIT is a place that respects and celebrates the diversity
of our community.47
Vest’s words were not mere lip service, as his vision and efforts to increase
the number of women faculty paid off, and during his immediate successor
52 T. KHWAJA
Susan Hockfield’s tenure, women faculty numbers in science and engi-

neering departments had nearly doubled since 1999.48 Susan Hockfield
had also mentioned the importance of continuing the tradition of increas-
ing gender and ethnic diversity in her inaugural address: “We also need to
sustain our rich diversity of ideas and cultures by building a powerful pipe-
line of young women and underrepresented minority students, eager to
pursue advanced degrees and academic careers.”49 More than two decades
after Vest’s speech, Rafael Reif in his 2012 inaugural address referred to
the achievements since then in his characterization of his institution:
The MIT that welcomed me 32 years ago was unlike anyplace I had ever
seen. Meritocratic in principle, it welcomed talent from everywhere. Then
as now, MIT radiated a spirit of openness, fairness and decency, from the
commitment to need-blind admissions to the practice of not favoring legacy
applicants. Later, MIT’s willingness to publicly acknowledge and correct
inequities for women faculty made MIT a national model for progress. No
one here at the time can forget how proud we felt to belong to MIT.50
The fact that all three successive MIT presidents emphasized the signifi-
cance of promoting women faculty at MIT as a starting point to increasing
diversity represents a remarkable progression of feminist activism across
presidencies.
Some presidents also focused on the significance of female role mod-
els for other women. For example, Sally Mason of the University of
Iowa dwelt on the importance of women role models when she spoke of
Mary Sue Coleman as a trailblazer for herself and other women.51 Brown
University’s Christina Paxson also mentioned her personal experience of
having a female mentor like Shirley Tilghman.52
UC Santa Cruz’s Denice Denton’s address is unique among the speeches
included in this study for her direct focus on feminist activism. At her
request, Denton’s inauguration was informal and organized around a sym-
posium on “Achieving Excellence Through Diversity,” led by Rensselaer’s
Shirley Ann Jackson.53 Denton used the discussions from the symposium
to frame her feminist activism. Denton also quoted feminist scholars such
as bell hooks and Gloria Anzaldua, as well as a study by Catalyst, a non-
profit organization that promotes women in businesses. Denton explored
the level of diversity at UC Santa Cruz, finding it less than ideal: “Yet, is
this oft-claimed celebration of diversity at UC Santa Cruz truly warranted?
Based on the discussions at this morning’s sessions, it is clear that our
proclaimed values of inclusion and acceptance of difference are not experi-

enced equally by all members of our campus community.”54
Denton’s sustained focus on diversity issues represents an exceptional
case in this study’s sample, and was perhaps a side effect of the theme sur-
rounding the celebration of her investiture. Nevertheless, she made good
use of her platform and even encouraged audience participation during
her speech. Her identity as an openly lesbian president of a research uni-
versity is unique and perhaps one of the reasons she was so deeply invested
in all kinds of diversity. Undoubtedly, her status as a woman scientist who
was openly lesbian exposed her to a number of challenges owing to her
unusual identity. Denton’s authenticity in her inaugural address is unusual
and remarkable; however, she was brutally criticized, even bullied, osten-
sibly for reasons that other presidents routinely get away with, such as
expenses on the president’s house to make it ready for her.55 Denton’s case
points to the resilience of oppressive structures in higher education that
ostracize those whose identities fall outside the realm of tradition; thus, it
is not surprising that not many presidents bring up issues such as gender
and race that might ruffle feathers and expose them to extra scrutiny. The
implications of these themes are discussed next.
Implications of Leader Rhetoric

Discourses produce and legitimate reality56; therefore, the language used
by leaders in their inaugural addresses provides the current and future pic-
ture of gender and leadership in higher education. The inaugural speeches
included in this study contain a wide variety of framing devices that serve
to aid the leaders in presenting a certain reality to their audience members.
A feminist poststructural discourse analysis of the speeches revealed several
subtle differences in the rhetoric employed by men and women presidents,
embedded within a generally similar discourse model.57
Overall, indirect, metaphorical language use was more common in
speeches by women. As evident from the analysis in this study, as opposed
to men, women in leadership positions have a tendency to speak more
about others than themselves and approach the idea of leadership and
power in a guarded manner. Although this humility is admirable, it does
not help aspiring nontraditional leaders in the audience form an idea of
what it means to be a nontraditional leader. Storytelling and metaphors
can be very useful to leaders in the management of meaning58 as these are
subtle and memorable devices to communicate a reality. Some effective
54 T. KHWAJA
examples of subtle references to controversial issues were found in the

sample for this study, such as Drew Faust’s reference to her status as a pio-
neer woman president at Harvard, and Lee Bollinger’s critique of gender
discrimination in his tribute to his wife. Leadership academies as well as
mentors to women need to pay attention to the importance of preparing
women for rhetorical situations. By studying leader rhetoric, aspiring lead-
ers can learn a great deal about how they can become effective speakers.
One rare example of open feminist activism in the sample for this
study was the speech by Denice Denton of UC Santa Cruz. Her inau-
gural address was an authentic extension of her personal beliefs, and her
feminist activism was overt. Yet, she was bitterly criticized for issues such
as the expenditure on the presidential house to get it ready for her, and
the appointment and salary of her same-sex partner.59 Denton was not the
only president to receive these perks, as these are common practices meant
to attract strong candidates, yet she was the target of a campaign of per-
sonal attacks that made it next to impossible for her to lead, and perhaps
even contributed to her tragic suicide just months after her investiture.
Denton’s example raises concerns about the incompatibility of authen-
ticity with the role of president, and the fear that people who “rock the
boat”60 too hard can get thrown off it, so most choose just to row it.
Rewards and punishments are used to perpetuate gender norms, and those
who choose to defy the norms, such as Denton, are vulnerable to punish-
ment; thus, the lack of feminist activism and suppression of women lead-
ers’ identity as a marginalized minority is not surprising.61 Denton’s story
of a troubled presidency that ended in suicide is an extreme illustration of
how a promising individual, with her ideals expressed so eloquently in her
inaugural address, can meet a hopeless end.
Gendered organizational structures were not directly critiqued in the
speeches; hence, few instances of problematizing gendered structures
from a feminist perspective can be found. According to Allan and associ-
ates, “language and meaning produce dynamic and contradictory subject
positions.”62 Women in leadership positions are in a contradictory posi-
tion because when they speak as women, they run the risk of not being
accepted as leaders, and if they speak as leaders, they may be rejected for
not acting like women “should.” The contradiction is sometimes known
as a “double bind.”63 The double bind puts restraints on women’s inau-
gural address rhetoric as they grapple with finding a balance so as not to
alienate their constituents with feminist rhetoric, while at the same time
speak authentically as women who broke gender barriers. The omission
of women’s stories and identities as individuals who overcame structural

barriers to become leaders indicates the resilience of the double bind and
structural constraints that women in academic leadership have to struggle
with, and that prevent them from leading authentically.64
The lack of focus on gendered organizations as reflected in the speeches
has implications for the future of higher education leadership because
presidents are in positions of power, and can exercise their power as a
positive force.65 Speeches are particularly important because they are
public articulations of the leaders’ vision for the future of the university
and indeed, all of higher education. Presidents can use rhetorical devices
such as framing,66 and combine elements of rhetoric: ethos, pathos, and
logos,67 to articulate their vision and activism without appearing to bla-
tantly impose their beliefs on the audience. This use of rhetorical devices
is particularly relevant to women leaders who are struggling with double
binds that force them to choose their words more carefully than men, or
risk facing rejection.
In the sample for this study, the instances of open and detailed acknowl-
edgement of a spouse’s or family’s integral role in the leader’s life were
uncommon; and this rarity, in part, points to the disembodied68 nature
of the work of leadership. With a few exceptions, presidents generally
did not acknowledge the inseparability of their personal lives from their
professional lives. Perhaps they are not comfortable acknowledging this
inseparability due to institutional cultures, or it is a matter of personal
choice. Nevertheless, the similar choice of mentioning or not mentioning
family at the same institution by successive presidents supports the role of
gendered organizational culture in constraining choices. The disembodied
leadership norm is evident from the disembodied rhetoric of many of the
presidents included in this study as they focused on their identities as lead-
ers disconnected from other dimensions of their lives.
The research reported here is limited by the lack of available data on
individuals whose identities do not fall in the binary categories of men or
women. It is hard to say what the rhetoric would look like had those voices
been included; and no discussion on gender is complete without the inclu-
sion of all on the gender spectrum. Hopefully, given the current focus on
inclusivity and diversity, in the near future there will be more openness in
how gender is approached in higher education leadership. The focus on
women leaders in recent years has increased, and women have made prog-
ress, yet as this study and other critical studies and discussions included in
this volume indicate, we still have a long journey toward full integration
56 T. KHWAJA
of women in senior leadership positions at research universities. Critical

analyses using diverse lenses can expose the sites of inequality so numbers
alone don’t lead to complacency.
The image of the research university president has shifted because of
the increased participation of women in leadership roles. Slowly, these
new leaders are trying to find their own voice as nontraditional leaders as
they leave their legacies at research universities, opening doors for more
nontraditional leaders who will follow them. It is hoped that with their
increased presence in high profile leadership roles, women will change
not only the discourse but also the cultures at these powerful research
institutions, and in turn the larger society. After all, women’s increasing
numbers in traditionally masculine domains is just one part of the journey
toward gender equality; and indeed, the problematizing and critiquing
of structural impediments is often missed when the focus is simply on
numbers. An exploration of the discourse contained in inaugural addresses
of research university presidents indicates that while there is much hope,
much remains to be done.
Notes
1. Eckert and McConnell-Ginet, Language and Gender; Spender,
Man Made Language.
2. Rouse, “Faust Addresses Her Role as First Female President.”
3. American Council on Education, The American College President:
2012 Edition.
4. Berger and Luckmann, The Social Constructivism of Reality: A
Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge.
5. Eckert and McConnell-Ginet, Language and Gender; Tannen,
Talking from Nine to Five: How Women’s and Men’s Conversational
Styles Affect who Gets Heard, who Gets Credit, and what Gets Done
at Work
6. Eckert and McConnell-Ginet, Language and Gender.
7. Hickman, Leading Organizations: Perspectives for a New Era;
Lipman- Blumen “Connective Leadership: Female Leadership
Styles in the 21st-Century Workplace”; Nidiffer, “New Leadership
for a New Century.”
8. Eddy and Khwaja, “What Happened to Re-visioning Community
College Leadership? A 20-Year Retrospective.”
9. Lorber, Gender Inequality; Padavic and Reskin, Men and Women

at Work; Ropers-Huilman, Gendered Futures in Higher Education:
Critical Perspectives for Change.
10. Bain and Cummings, “Academe’s Glass Ceiling: Societal,

Professional/Organizational, and Institutional Barriers To The
Career Advancement of Academic Women”; Chliwniak, Higher
Education Leadership: Analyzing the Gender Gap.
11. Chliwniak, Higher Education Leadership: Analyzing the Gender
Gap.; Eagly and Karau, “Role Congruity Theory of Prejudice
Toward Female Leaders”; Eagly and Sczesny “Stereotypes About
Women, Men, and Leaders: Have Times Changed?”
12. Catalyst, The Double-Bind Dilemma for Women in Leadership:
Damned if you do, Doomed if you Don’t; Eagly and Karau “Role
Congruity Theory of Prejudice Toward Female Leaders”; Nidiffer,
“New Leadership for a New Century.”
13. Bornstein, “Women and the Quest for Presidential Legitimacy.”
14.
Eagly, Johannesen-Schmidt and Engen “Transformational,
Transactional, and Laissez-Faire Leadership Styles: A Meta-Analysis
Comparing Women and Men”; Engen, Leeden and Willemsen,
“Gender, Context and Leadership Styles: A Field Study.”
15. For example, Eddy, “Views of Gender in the Community College
Presidency.”
16. Nidiffer, “New Leadership for a New Century.”
Colleges”; Tedrow and Rhoades, “A Qualitative Study of Women’s
18. Bornstein, “Women and the Quest for Presidential Legitimacy.”
19. Bornstein, “Women and the College Presidency.”
20. Chliwniak. Higher Education Leadership: Analyzing the Gender
Gap.
21. Burke, The Art of Conversation, 10.
22. Burke, The Art of Conversation; Coates and Pichler, Language and
Gender: A Reader; Lakoff, “Language and Women’s Place”;
Spender, Man Made Language; Tannen, Gender and Discourse.
23. Fairhurst and Sarr, The Art of Framing: Managing the Language of
Leadership, xi.
24. Geiger, Knowledge and Money: Research Universities and the
Paradox of the Marketplace; Hornig, “Introduction”; Lewis and
Hearn, The Public Research University: Serving the Public Good in
58 T. KHWAJA
New Times; Morphew and Huisman, “Using Institutional Theory

to Reframe Research on Academic Drift.”
25. Hornig, “Introduction.”

Organizations,” 149.
27. Armenti, “May Babies and Posttenure Babies: Maternal Decisions
of Women Professors”; Ward and Wolf-Wendel, “Academic
Motherhood: Managing Complex Roles in Research Universities.”
28. Gee, An Introduction to Discourse Analysis: Theory and Method.
29. Allan, “Constructing Women’s Status: Policy Discourses of

University Women’s Commission Policy Reports”; Policy Discourses,
Gender, and Education: Constructing Women’s Status; “Feminist
Poststructuralism Meets Policy Analysis: An Overview.”
30. Gee, An Introduction to Discourse Analysis: Theory and Method, 8.
31. Ibid., 32.

University Women’s Commission Policy Reports;” Policy Discourses,
Gender, and Education: Constructing Women’s Status; “Feminist
Poststructuralism Meets Policy Analysis: An Overview.”
33. Allan, “Feminist Poststructuralism Meets Policy Analysis: An

Overview,” 13.
34. Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education,

“Classification Description.”
35. Faust, “Installation Address: Unleashing Our Most Ambitious

Imaginings,” 12.
36. Rouse, “Faust Addresses Her Role as First Female President.”
37. Schlissel, “The Power of Ideas and the Value of All Voices,” 54–55.
38.
Bollinger, “Inaugural Address-the Inauguration of Lee
C. Bollinger,” 4.
39. Denton, “Leading at the Edge: Advancing UC Santa Cruz to the
Next Level of Excellence,” 11–12.
40. Gutmann, “Inaugural Address,” 11.
41. Schlissel, “The Power of Ideas and the Value of All Voices,” 8–11.
42. Acker “Hierarchies, Jobs, Bodies: A Theory of Gendered


Organizations”; Williams, Unbending Gender: Why Family and
Work Conflict and What to do About it.
44. Bitzer, “The Rhetorical Situation.”
5. Gutmann, “Inaugural Address,” 17.

4
46.
Bollinger, “Inaugural Address-the Inauguration of Lee
C. Bollinger.”
47. Vest, “The Inaugural Address,” 24–25.
48. Jaschik, “MIT Again Reviews Status of Women.”
49. Susan Hockfield, “MIT Inaugural Address,” 35.
50. Reif, “Inaugural Address,” 30.
51. Mason, “Pole Star, Rising Star.”
52. Paxson, “Inauguration Address: The Value of Imagination.”
53. “Celebrating Chancellor Denton’s Arrival.”
54. Denton, “Leading at the Edge: Advancing UC Santa Cruz to the
Next Level of Excellence,” 69.
55. Lublin and Golden, “Vanderbilt Reins In Lavish Spending by Star
Chancellors.”

University Women’s Commission Policy Reports.”
57. Khwaja, “The Language of Leadership: A Feminist Poststructural
Discourse Analysis of Inaugural Addresses by Presidents of High
Profile Research Universities.”
58. Smircich and Morgan, “Leadership: The Management of

Meaning.”
59. Lublin and Golden, “Vanderbilt Reins In Lavish Spending by Star
Chancellors.”
60. Hughes, “Rockin’ or Rowin’ the Boat: 10 Responses to

Institutionalized Racism,” 1.
61. Eagly and Carli, “The Female Leadership Advantage: An Evaluation
of the Evidence”; Padavic and Reskin, Men and Women at Work.
62. Allan, Iverson, and Ropers-Huilman, “Introduction,” 5.
63. Nidiffer, “New Leadership for a New Century,” 112.
Colleges”; Tedrow and Rhoades, “A Qualitative Study of Women’s
65. Allan, Iverson, and Ropers-Huilman, “Introduction.”
66. Fairhurst, The Power of Framing: Creating the Language of
Leadership; Fairhurst and Sarr, The Art of Framing: Managing the
Language of Leadership.
67. Covino and Jolliffe, Rhetoric: Concepts, Definitions, Boundaries.

CHAPTER 4
Conditions Enabling Women’s Leadership

in Community Colleges
Amy Martin and KerryAnn O’Meara
As noted in the introduction to this book, despite increases in women’s

presence at higher education institutions in the aggregate, gendered
notions of work and leadership continue to impact their representation
in senior level positions at colleges and universities nationally. Both the
2007 and 2012 editions of the American College President Study high-
light that women are beginning to be more equally represented in senior
leadership positions (e.g., chief of staff, chief academic officer, dean, chief
diversity officer, provost, senior administrative officer) but not in the col-
lege presidency.1 Women’s representation in senior leadership positions
also varies based on academic discipline and institutional type, creating a
gendered academic labor market.2 This dearth of women in higher educa-
tion presidencies (and variation across discipline and institutional type)
is evidence that despite the strong presence of women leaders in higher
education, gender discrimination still exists.3 In this chapter, we use a
A. Martin (*)
Associate Provost for Undergraduate Education, Michigan State University,
East Lansing, MI, USA
K. O’Meara
ADVANCE program for Inclusive Excellence, Higher Education Program,
University of Maryland, College Park, MD, USA

62 A. MARTIN AND K. O’MEARA
multiple frame analysis that includes feminist standpoint theory to exam-

ine the intersections of gender, leadership, institutional structures, hir-
ing processes, human resource policies, individual agency and community
agency in one state’s system of community colleges. The purpose is to (1)
present one example of a complex, nuanced framework for researching
the gendered nature of organization structures that positions stakeholders
at the center of conversation, (2) use the various approaches associated
with this framework to examine the gendered nature of on-ramps and off-
ramps for women pursuing community college leadership positions and
(3) subsequently pose suggestions to higher education leaders, researchers
and policy makers about how institutional culture can be challenged to
advance inclusion on campus.
Since their inception, community colleges have been situated as institu-
tions where faculty and staff could pursue notions of social equality and
increased opportunity in direct response to the mission of more selec-
tive research institutions.4 Generally, community colleges are considered
equitable worksites for women and many build their academic careers in
these environments. However, women are still reluctant to consider, and
face barriers to pursuing, the presidency in the community college envi-
ronment. Thus, a lack of gender representation at the highest level of
leadership in community colleges remains a nagging reminder that these
institutions have yet to enact their pursuit of social equity. However, there
is an opportunity to activate on-ramps to the community college presi-
dency for minoritized academic leaders as presidential retirements con-
tinue to increase over the next decade. This chapter and study will be
used as a platform to examine the relationship between gender and leader-
ship with an eye toward taking advantage of these pending retirements in
higher education.
Curious about gender and leadership in Maryland, we conducted a
review of leadership positions at community colleges in 2012. Among a
variety of interesting gender equity indicators (faculty salaries, tenure, and
leadership), we discovered that 56 % of the Maryland community colleges’
presidents were women.5 This representation in the presidential ranks is
much higher than the 33 % of women in community college presiden-
cies nationally.6 Additionally, as shown in Table 4.1, the percentage of
women presidents in Maryland community colleges has been increasing
since 1998 and has been higher than the percentage of women presidents
at public associate’s institutions nationally since 1998. Given the lack of
representation of women in the community college presidency nationally,
CONDITIONS ENABLING WOMEN’S LEADERSHIP IN COMMUNITY COLLEGES 63
Table 4.1 Women Presidents 1998–2012

Maryland community Public associate’s institutions All institutional
collegesa nationallyb types nationallyb
1998 22.2 % 22.1 % 19.3 %

2001 36.8 % 27.0 % 21.1 %
2006 41.2 % 29.1 % 23.0 %
2012 56.2 % 33.0 % 26.4 %
Sources: aMACC Directories, 2004–2012; Maryland Community College Websites, Directory of County
Officials: Maryland Association of Counties
b
Cook and Young 2012
we were curious about the potential set of factors that created on-ramps
for women who considered and pursued a community college presidency
in Maryland.
Something about the environment in Maryland is uniquely position-
ing women to overcome gendered work norms and expectations of lead-
ers. The percentage of women presidents in Maryland’s two-year colleges
has been increasing since 1989, and remained above the national aver-
age of women presidents in associate’s institutions since 1998.7 Utilizing
feminist standpoint theory8 and Bolman and Deal’s four organizational
frames,9 this chapter relies on data from a study that explores the factors
that contributed to the comparatively high numbers of women presidents
at Maryland community colleges to stimulate a nuanced conversation
about gender and leadership in higher education.
Understanding the factors contributing to the higher percentage of
women in Maryland community college presidencies using a feminist,
multi-frame approach is important for three reasons. First, most studies
of women and leadership consider the issue from single vantage points.
Using a multi-framed social science approach takes into consideration the
unique context of a state’s history, geography, politics, economics, and
organizational system, and the impact those factors have on community
college leaders in that state. Second, most of the previous research about
women academic leaders has examined individual women’s paths to the
presidency, or has been bounded by a single institution. In this study, the
case was bounded within a state system (Maryland’s 16 community col-
leges), which will promote discussion about aspects of regional and state
governance that encouraged the hiring and promotion of women. Third,
much of the previous research about the influence of gendered norms on
women leaders in higher education institutions has focused on the “barri-

ers” women have to overcome to achieve positions such as the presidency.
Focusing instead on the practices and conditions that supported women’s
pursuit of and persistence in top leadership roles in the community col-
leges in Maryland enables the identification of specific institutional and
individual strategies that could be replicated in other states’ community
colleges. The next section provides an overview of the theoretical frame-
work and specific theories that were employed to guide this case study.
This theoretical approach could be replicated or enhanced as a technique
that dissects the unique relationship between social constructions of gen-
der, leadership, and the higher education environment.
Theoretical Framework
Structural, human resource, political, cultural, and feminist theories or
frameworks can be helpful tools in understanding the intricate challenges
associated with a lack of gender parity in higher education leadership.
When used together, these frameworks highlight multiple possibilities and
pathways for change. The following paragraphs outline the key aspects
of each approach and how these frameworks were applied in a study of
women in the Maryland community college presidency.
Structural Approaches Structural approaches are drawn from manage-

ment science and sociology. This type of approach tends to emphasize
goals, specialized roles, or formal relationships, and leads to the examina-
tion of organizational charts, rules, policies, procedures, and hierarchies.10
Applying this perspective to the issue of women presidencies in two-year
institutions specifically, scholars have explored the demographic, pipeline,
organizational, and policy-related explanations for this phenomenon.11
For example, scholars have considered such policies as “stop the clock,”
tenure, family leave policies, affirmative action, sexual harassment, Title
IX, and Title VII, and how each of these may have created structures that
supported women on their pathways to the presidency.12
Human Resource Approaches Human resource approaches are drawn

from psychological theories and emphasize the influence of mentoring,
networking, and leadership development on the career paths of individu-
als within organizations.13 Applying the human resource perspective to
the issue of women presidencies in two-year institutions, scholars have
explored human capital theory, the influence of leadership development

programs, mentoring, personal choices, and professional growth.14 For
example, in addition to studying gender and leadership generally, scholars
have specifically considered women community college leaders’ invest-
ment in a terminal degree, attendance of leadership programs, and access
to a positive mentor in relationship to their willingness and ability to pur-
sue a presidency.15
Political Approaches Political approaches are drawn from sociology and

political science theory and emphasize the bargaining, negotiation, coer-
cion, compromising, and coalition-building aspects of organizations.16
Applying this perspective to the issue of women presidencies in two-year
institutions, scholars have explored the impact of coalitions, commissions,
or unions on women’s experiences.17 For example, scholars have examined
the impact of unionization efforts for women full-time and part-time fac-
ulty and the role of women’s commissions in creating equitable leadership
opportunities for women in higher education institutions.18
Cultural Approaches Cultural approaches are drawn from sociology and

anthropology and emphasize the role that values, beliefs, stories, myths,
and assumptions play in an organization.19 Applying this perspective to
the issue of women presidencies in two-year institutions, scholars have
explored the impact of institutional and social norms on women’s expe-
riences in higher education.20 For example, scholars have examined the
culture and/or climate for women at community colleges to determine if
two-year colleges are equitable worksites for women and places where they
have the desire and support for assuming the presidency.21
Feminist/Gendered Approaches Feminist approaches tend to uncover the

hidden and often inequitable aspects of society and institutions, especially
by gender, race, social class and sexuality. Standpoint theorists, such as
those from feminist and African American studies, employ the distinctive
view of women and women of color within an organization (or culture)
to identify barriers and suggest possible interventions that might posi-
tively change their environment.22 Applying this perspective to the issue
of women presidencies in two-year institutions, scholars have considered
the unique circumstances that keep the majority of women and racially
minoritized women from pursing or acquiring leadership positions.23
For example, scholars have examined the organizational experiences of
women in community colleges by studying the impact of “ideal worker”

discourses, gendered leadership norms and the responsibilities of manag-
ing family obligations on women’s consideration of the presidency.24
In summary, the conceptual framework used for this study included

Bolman and Deal’s25 four organizational frames, which focus on the struc-
tural, political, human resource, and cultural aspects of organizations, as
well as feminist standpoint theory.26 The research questions were: (1) what
were the factors that contributed to the comparatively high percentage
of women community college presidents in Maryland? and (2) how did
these factors interact to contribute to the increasing presence of women
community college presidents in Maryland? Overall, this multi-pronged
framework offers a more holistic approach than had been used before to
examine the issue of gender and leadership, specifically that of women in
the community college presidency.
Research Method
This multidimensional framework, utilized with a qualitative approach to
research, can provide a strong methodological approach that allows us
to represent the voices and experiences of the women living gender and
leadership in their current roles. To structure this study specifically, a case
study was conducted using multiple frames and methodological tools.
The case study design provides thick descriptions of a phenomenon, and
expands or generalizes theories.27 This approach helps to reveal, in detail,
specific factors that influenced Maryland’s community college system in
this case, and has the potential to uncover influences on gender equity in
higher education systems more broadly.
Detailed descriptions of the case and process of inquiry highlight the
challenges and considerations that influenced this examination of gen-
der and leadership in Maryland community colleges. First, the collective
set of community colleges in Maryland was defined as the 16 commu-
nity colleges listed on the Maryland Association of Community Colleges
(MDACC) website.28 However, the Maryland Association of Community
Colleges (MACC) was officially formed in 1992, and the current set of
community colleges, their establishment as the 16 community colleges of
Maryland, and subsequent naming was not complete until 2006. Thus, this
study takes into account the varying numbers and name changes of col-
leges between 1989 and 2006 in tallying trends over time. This attention
to overall tallies was important given that tokenism and “tipping point”
theorists29 contend that when women make up 35–45 % of a group, their
presence in that environment becomes normative. Therefore, data col-
lection focused on the time period directly prior to 2006, when approxi-
mately 41 % of Maryland community college presidents were women.
Mertens30 identified several approaches to increasing the credibility of
qualitative studies: prolonged and persistent engagement, peer debrief-
ing, member checks, progressive subjectivity, negative case analysis, and
triangulation of data. Multiple methods of data collection helped ensure
the trustworthiness of this study. Specifically, data collection included 19
semi-structured interviews for approximately one hour in person or by
telephone (see Table 4.2). These interviews were also compared with par-
ticipant curriculum vitae, county- and city-based news articles, and web
information to examine the career paths of women community college
presidents in Maryland between 1989 and 2012.
Participants included five key informants: current and previous
University System of Maryland leaders, a longstanding faculty member at
the University of Maryland, and the director of a regional higher education
organization. These five participants provided a macro view of Maryland
and the higher education system in the state. In addition, they were able
to identify the larger societal, human resource, and cultural factors that
were influencing the rise in numbers of women community college presi-
dents in the period leading up to 2006.
The next set of interviews was conducted with two previous commu-
nity college presidents (one from Maryland) and one current Maryland
community college president. These individuals had developed and coor-
dinated community college doctoral programs or “grow your own” lead-
ership development programs at several of the community colleges in
Table 4.2 Participants
5 8 2 2 2 19
Maryland Current Maryland Maryland Community Interviews
Higher Ed and Community Community College Search
System & Previous College College Firm
Maryland Maryland Chief Trustees Representatives
Higher Ed Community Academic
Organizational College Officers
Leaders Presidents
Source: Martin 2014

Maryland. One of these individuals also served as a community college

trustee.
Another set of interviews was conducted with three retired commu-
nity college presidents who served in Maryland between 1989 and 2006,
one longstanding community college president, another current commu-
nity college president who had been in a chief student services position
between 1989 and 2006, and two longstanding community college chief
academic officers. This set of interviews provided a micro-level view of
leadership in the state. These seven individuals identified the particular
policies, practices, and programs that may have influenced the hiring of
women community college presidents. They also explained how state, sys-
tem, and institutional practices contributed to the culture and environ-
ment around gender in Maryland community colleges.
The final interviews included two community college trustees and two
individuals who work with presidential search firms that hire community
college presidents (one was a previous Maryland community college presi-
dent). These individuals provided perspectives on hiring trends related to
women in the presidency nationally and within the state of Maryland.
All participants shared perspectives based on the identities they dis-
closed in their interviews. These perspectives speak to the importance of
using feminist standpoint theory as a framework because they clarified
how gender, race, and family status significantly impacted participants’
perspectives on the path to the community college presidency and rein-
forced theoretical hypotheses about the gendered nature of leadership.
The research for this study also included analysis of previously collected
Maryland higher education and community college survey data along with
trends regarding gender and higher education institutions in Maryland
and nationally. Archived news articles (e.g., Baltimore Sun, Washington
Post) were analyzed to discern community college presidential search pro-
cesses, educational attainment and careers in the Maryland/DC area, com-
munity college presidents’ personal dual career family stories, the work of
the Maryland Commission for Women, and women in the legislature. In
addition, community college search firm websites and the AACC website
were examined for community college president hiring practices, general
search information, and preparatory tools. Next, data was gathered from
the Maryland State Archives and online tools to understand the appoint-
ments of women community college trustees between 1986 and 2013.
Then, Maryland community college websites were reviewed for policies
and practices related to gender equity and work-life balance. These data
were triangulated with the Maryland Directory of Community Colleges,

Maryland State Employee Data System information provided by MACC,
a chart of community college trustees, and a chart of women community
college presidents hired in Maryland 1989–2013.31
Data analysis also included comparing the size and location of com-
munity colleges with: trends in the hiring of women community college
presidents, the number of women faculty at each community college over
time, the development of family-friendly policies at individual commu-
nity colleges over time, where and when childcare facilities or programs
had been developed, which community colleges had diversity offices and
programs, and which community colleges offered gender/women’s stud-
ies programs. In combination, these types of data assisted the analysis of
important trends that might have influenced the increasing number of
women community college presidents in Maryland.
The data was analyzed by drawing on Bolman and Deal’s32 four organi-
zational frames (structural, human resources, political, cultural) and femi-
nist standpoint theory.33 Creswell’s recommended data analysis process
for case studies also guided this research. The process included creating
and organizing files, making notes and forming codes, describing context,
establishing themes and patterns, interpreting conversations and policies,
developing naturalistic generalizations, and then presenting an in-depth
picture of the case using narratives, tables, and figures.34 The analysis was
conducted using the conceptual frameworks identified for this study but
allowed additional concepts to emerge from the data. Essentially, the data
analysis was both data- and concept-driven.35
During discussion of the findings and their relevance to a broader con-
versation about gender and leadership in higher education, there were two
limitations of the research design for this study to consider. First, these
findings cannot be generalized to other states’ community colleges, or
community colleges nationally. The study was purposefully designed not
to compare Maryland community colleges with other states’ community
colleges in order to focus data collection on the collective set of women
community college presidents in Maryland. However, state-by-state com-
parisons would help higher education practitioners to better understand
the impact of state contexts (state political culture, labor market, educa-
tional attainment, state funding formulas, state higher education organiza-
tion, state level activism and alliances, and geography) on the recruitment
and appointment of women into top academic leadership roles and the
community college presidency specifically.
In addition, this study did not gather in-depth data on affinity group
training and development activities, the agendas set by the affinity groups,
and the alliances formed among representatives from the 16 colleges.
Focus groups with the members of the various affinity groups would
add to understanding the details of MACC as a gendered organization
through the collective perspectives of affinity group stakeholders. Adding
focus groups as a methodological approach to similar studies could create
space to further tease apart perspectives about the constructions of gen-
der within higher education organizations, such as the leadership affinity
groups in Maryland.
Findings
The multiple frameworks utilized in this study revealed the gendered and
interactive nature of on-ramps for women pursuing community college
leadership positions. The high number and increasing presence of women
community college presidents in Maryland from 1989 to 2012 was influ-
enced by complex interactions between: (1) Maryland’s abundant labor
market; (2) leadership development and mentoring opportunities for
women community college leaders in Maryland; (3) women’s networks
and alliances; (4) alternative paths to the community college presidency;
(5) Maryland community college trustee membership and training; (6)
Maryland women academic leaders’ individual agency; and (7) Maryland
women leaders’ collective agency in changing MACC’s culture. These
interrelated factors between 1989 and 2006 converged to make Maryland
an incubator for identifying and promoting excellent community college
women leaders. Each of these factors is considered in the context of this
book’s challenge to critically examine notions of gender and leadership in
higher education.
Maryland’s Labor Market Maryland’s abundant labor market, educational

attainment trends among women, pipeline of women in Maryland com-
munity colleges (students, faculty, chief academic officers, trustees), and
geography (proximity between community colleges and four-year institu-
tions) proved to be strong structural factors that contributed to the high
number and increasing appointments of women community college presi-
dents in Maryland. The fact that 65 % of Maryland women worked outside
the home in 199236 and 23 % had advanced degrees in 199037 increased
the likelihood of Maryland women applicants for community college pres-
idencies in the 1990s. More women in the pipeline with significant work
experience meant more women ready for leadership opportunities. This
finding enjoins college and university leaders to continue advocating for
women’s access to education, provide support for their participation in the
workforce and encourage women to pursue their doctorates, particularly
in those disciplines that lack gender diversity.
Leadership Development and Mentoring In addition to the large numbers

of women in Maryland’s workforce, national and regional leadership devel-
opment opportunities (e.g., ACE-NIP, HERS, Lakin Institute,38 MACC
affinity groups) along with intentional and pervasive mentoring of women
community college leaders at Maryland community colleges were strong
human resource factors that directly contributed to the high number of
women community college presidents in Maryland, particularly between
1989 and 2006. This finding is important because leaders at the American
Association of Community Colleges have found a lack of preparation and
overall desire to consider a community college presidency influences the
gap between the number of women in the pipeline to the presidency and
the percentage of women in the community college presidency.39
Part of the reason why women community college presidents in

Maryland were prepared for their positions was due to their participation
in leadership development opportunities at the national and state level.
Participants hired between 1989 and 2006 noted that those opportuni-
ties (e.g., Harvard, HERS, Lakin Institute) had been critical to increasing
their confidence and developing the skills necessary to assume a presidency.
Several of the participants identified participating in the American Council
on Education-National Identification Program (ACE-NIP) as critical to
their success. The goal of ACE-NIP (founded in 1977, and now the ACE
Women’s Network) was to prepare women for academic leadership posi-
tions and provide them with support at the state level.40 Some of the early
women community college presidents in this study noted that the ACE-
NIP group in Maryland was active and they were heavily involved with
the group. Supporting women’s attendance at these types of institutes,
including those structured for specific social identity groups (e.g., women,
all genders, sexual identity groups, racial and ethnic groups), remains a
critical on-ramp to future higher education leadership positions.
At the same time the Maryland ACE-NIP group was active (1990s),
the MACC was getting organized and inadvertently created opportunities
at which community college leaders (e.g., affinity groups of presidents,

trustees, chief officers) could gather. The geographic proximity between
Maryland community colleges facilitated regular meetings among affin-
ity groups. Several Maryland community college presidents and academic
leaders in this study identified MACC affinity group meetings as places
where they learned how to manage important issues on their campuses
and gained other important leadership skills. This type of structure could
be replicated through state systems of higher education or organized based
on geographic proximity of institutions to provide leaders of all genders
with this type of support and learning.
Considerable educational opportunities continued at the individual
Maryland community college campuses where men and women presi-
dents intentionally mentored senior officers (CAOs, CSSOs). Mentoring
included support for completing a terminal degree, intentional discussions
about topics like budget management, job shadowing, representing a
president at an MACC affinity group meeting, and small forms of encour-
agement. Essentially, these findings demonstrate how national, regional
and individual human resource approaches can be combined to establish a
rich set of development opportunities for emerging higher education lead-
ers broadly and create on-ramps to the presidency for women specifically.
Human resource factors in the Maryland study were also enhanced and
supported by political factors set in motion during the 1990s.
Women’s Networks and Alliances Strong alliances among women legisla-

tors, political activists, and higher education leaders between 1989 and
2005 proved to be significant political factors that contributed to the high
number and success of women community college leaders in Maryland.
Between 1987 and 1992, Maryland women were being elected to con-
gress (Barbara Mikulski, Connie Morella), the first woman community
college president in Maryland was hired (1989), and a woman was hired
as the first executive director of MACC (1992).41 Women worked with
the Maryland Commission for Women,42 MHEC,43 and MACC to create
task forces that represented women leaders across the state. These politi-
cal alignments increased the power and influence of Maryland women. As
these alliances formed, and Maryland women organized themselves, they
also targeted their advocacy efforts (e.g., family-friendly policies, moving
women into higher education leadership positions, advocating for women
to be elected to state office, curriculum alignment groups across institu-
tional type).
The women academic leaders and early community college presi-

dents in this study identified these networks and working groups as
critical to their support and success in leading Maryland community col-
leges. Collectively, the Maryland Commission for Women, the Women’s
Legislative Caucus, MHEC, and MACC created an influential coalition
of women who advocated for women’s representation in the highest-level
positions in Maryland higher education institutions. These findings serve
as reminder that broad political activism for people who identify on the
gender spectrum remains an important piece of breaking down gendered
barriers to leadership in high education.
Alternative Paths and Search Processes Gendered on-ramps to leader-

ship were also bolstered by advocacy for women in all types of educa-
tional leadership positions in Maryland. This finding challenges notions
of what positions best prepare chief officers (CAOs, CSSOs, CBOs) in
community colleges for the presidency. Of the 16 women community col-
lege presidents hired at MACC’s community colleges, seven had paths
to the presidency through the Chief Student Services Officer position or
a combination of experiences as community college leaders in academic
affairs, student services, or business services.44 Maryland community col-
lege trustees’ willingness to hire community college leaders from non-
traditional paths to the presidency, particularly student services, influenced
the high number of women presidents by expanding the pool of women
in search processes. Specifically, one participant (a current Maryland com-
munity college leader) commented that hiring presidents from the pool of
chief student services officers increased the likelihood that a woman would
be hired because of the larger percentage of women in those positions.
Notably, the same participant also contrasted this possibility in community
colleges with four-year universities where chief student service officers are
rarely considered for the presidency. This approach creates an arguably
unnecessary barrier for talented individuals of all genders who have already
acquired the skills and abilities necessary to assume a college or university
presidency.
Maryland community college trustees took what might be considered

another bold step to break down gendered barriers between 1989 and
2007. They hired three women presidents from within their institutions
without conducting an external search; two of these women were for-
merly CSSOs.45 According to Weisman, Vaughan, and the ACCC,46 about
one-third of community college presidents were hired from within their

institutions. Several participants commented that Maryland’s commu-
nity college trustees’ approach of conducting internal searches or simply
appointing some of the early women community college presidents was a
bold move for the time period (two in 1998, one in 2007 after two years
of succession planning). Regardless of this approach being categorized as
typical or bold, early internal searches certainly helped create a normative
environment for hiring women presidents among Maryland community
colleges.
In contrast to the national norms in which one in three presidents is
hired internally, since 2007, all new presidential hires in Maryland’s com-
munity colleges were external hires. This finding suggests that both inter-
nal and external search approaches may support efforts to move women
into the community college presidency. However, in states and higher
education institutions lacking a history of women and other minoritized
genders in top leadership positions, internal succession planning and hir-
ing may prove critical to obtaining more presidents who identify along the
gender spectrum.
Trustee Membership and Training Between 1996 and 2006, another key
intersection of gendered on-ramps to community college leadership in
Maryland involved the increase of women who were appointed by the
governor to community college trusteeships (except at Baltimore City
Community College, where trustees are elected). More women trustees
arrived at the same time that half of the institutions needed to hire presi-
dents.47 During this timeframe, Maryland’s community college boards of
trustees relied on search firms (sensitive to hiring for diversity) to fill the
presidencies. The percentage of women community trustees in Maryland
grew from 26% of trustees in 1992 to 29% by 2001, and then jumped to
35% by 2005. During this same period, numbers varied with respect to the
representation of women on these boards. For example, a board may have
had anywhere from one woman among a group of seven trustees to three
women in a group of seven trustees.48 Thus, even though the percentage
of women representing the hiring officials for community college presi-
dents was growing, men still played a critical role in the hiring of women
community college president in Maryland.
Perhaps the level and amount of training the boards went through to
increase their competency and credibility as members influenced trustees
of all genders. For example, one participant, who is a current trustee mem-
ber, explained:
Well, the biggest criticism that I know about boards is that boards are lay-
people so they really don’t know very much about higher education…[so]
we trained. We really did train, because we know and we knew then that the
criticism would be that we were a lay board that didn’t know much about
governance.
This participant felt that progressive boards countered gendered and ste-
reotypical beliefs about the characteristics of effective presidents because
they had been exposed to different examples of competent presidents and
boards at conferences and MACC affinity meetings. Since many of the
women community college presidents who participated in this study did
not use traditional male approaches to leadership, training about equitable
approaches to search processes likely helped boards of trustees be more
open to considering women for the community college presidencies that
were open at their institutions.
Additionally, the average term of service for Maryland community col-
lege trustees is five to six years, which is longer than the four-year national
average.49 This longevity meant that community college board members
who were involved in hiring women presidents or saw women presidents
succeed on other campuses likely stayed in the trusteeship long enough
to note those successes and consider them when hiring a new president.
Overall, there were significant numbers of women trustees, well-trained
trustees, and stability among the board of trustee members in Maryland
between 1996 and 2005. Together, these findings lead to a call for serious
examination of higher education governance structures and trustee board
training, given their importance in advancing minoritzed individuals to
leadership positions in higher education. On-going training that breaks
down stereotypical notions of leadership could remove critical barriers for
leaders of all genders who already have individual agency in regards to
pursuing a college or university presidency.
Individual Agency O’Meara, Campbell, and Terosky observe that agency

in career advancement takes two forms: perspectives and behaviors.50
Maryland women community college presidents and academic leaders
in this study exercised agency to overcome gendered challenges. They
described specific strategies that they used to balance the needs of their
family with their career aspirations. For example, one of the community
college presidents in this study described how she managed the demands
of a high-level leadership position and family obligations:
And I said, so even in work, there are peak times and there are times when
things are kind of moving slow and good and you don’t have to necessarily
give, you know, 100 percent. And when I say 100 percent, not that you’re
not committed to work, but you’re not there until all hours of the day and
night. You’re not there on the weekends. And that’s okay. And you can do
it and raise a family and raise a family with a good quality of life.
With the support of critical mentors, some of these women pursued their
doctoral degrees while raising children and working. Several women in
this study also moved their families to Maryland so they could pursue
community college leadership positions there. At the same time, these
women took on additional assignments or attended events on behalf of
their supervisors (community college presidents) so that they could gain
the skills necessary to pursue a presidency. In combination, the critical
choices the women participants in this study made to pursue their terminal
degree and career aspirations, support their families, and stay authentic to
who they were as leaders influenced their own acquisition of the commu-
nity college presidency and provided visible role models for other women
community college leaders.
Agency and Culture Change These individual behaviors by women com-

munity college academic leaders in Maryland increased their chances of
becoming presidents. However, as discussed by Eddy and Ward in Chapter
2, women in this study merged their individual agency to collectively chal-
lenge masculine norms and practices present in the leadership culture of
Maryland community colleges. These early women presidents collabo-
rated with each other and shared successful leadership and management
strategies. Together, they achieved both individual accomplishments in
their community college presidencies, and helped support the success of
other leaders (men and women).
For example, the collaborative approaches to leadership used by these

women presidents created a culture that was attractive to community col-
lege leaders across the 16 colleges. Maryland women community college
presidents were known for embracing change, practicing inclusion, and
collaborating. One participant described the comprehensive nature of this

change:
I think the group of presidents that we have now, thankfully, is so differ-

ent from 20 years ago. They are passionate. They want to see advancement
of everybody. They want to collaborate with others as long as it benefits
their students. The change has been just monumental, really, from—not
only in Maryland but I know in Maryland—from isolated community col-
leges, which people who didn’t really have training in education in how to
be an educational leader, to now it’s just extremely strong. We’ve had an
extremely strong group of presidents, I think, for ten years [since 2003].
Participants in this study indicated that there was something culturally

unique and progressive about MACC’s organizational structure and the
interactions within it. The early activism of Maryland women legislators
and the unique, collaborative structure of MACC were critical feminist/
gendered factors that supported Maryland women community college
leaders.51 These findings suggest that higher education leaders who rep-
resent minoritized genders and their advocates should find ways to utilize
their collective agency within state systems of higher education (or among
a specific group of institutions) to help shape an inclusive environment
that embraces change and values multiple perspectives.
Discussion and Implications
The continued struggle for gender equity in higher education presents
different challenges across institutional type.52 There is evidence that the
higher percentage of women presidents at community colleges relative to
other institutional types may be an example of a gendered labor market
in which women and people of color tend to lead the lower status two-
year colleges rather than the more elite four-year research institutions.53
The multi-pronged approach for analyzing the research highlighted in this
chapter provided evidence of activities (e.g., leadership development pro-
grams, networking opportunities), policies (e.g., search guidelines, affir-
mative action), and aspects of women’s individual and collective agency
that contributed to the hiring and promotion of women in the two-year
college setting in Maryland specifically. These findings can also contrib-
ute to deconstructing broad concepts of gender and leadership to shine
a light on specific policies, practices, and actions that support leadership
on-ramps for people of all genders. For each set of findings, we will discuss
their relationship to women in the community college sector specifically
and then examine those findings as they relate to gender, higher education
and leadership more broadly.
First, structural findings from this study imply that states interested
in advancing women into community college presidency should focus
attention on getting women on community college boards of trustees,
providing and promoting dual career hiring opportunities along with
family-friendly policies, and providing opportunities for pursuing a doc-
torate. Although geography and a highly educated women’s labor mar-
ket provided critical structural supports in Maryland, states without these
benefits might focus on the visibility and presence of dual career hiring
and family-friendly policies, seek opportunities for collaboration with local
higher education institutions across institutional type, utilize technology
to conduct meetings, and provide leadership development opportunities
at individual institutions.
Specifically, participants in this study noted several structured oppor-
tunities that brought them together. First, the state legislature mandated
that community colleges and universities work together to create seamless
transition for two-year colleges’ students to transfer to four-year institu-
tions. Women faculty and academic leaders came together in curriculum
alignment groups across institution type and this raised the prominence
of women working in community colleges. Second, Maryland’s women
higher education leaders (including community college leaders) also
worked on task forces with women legislators from the state such as
one on family-friendly policies. Third, women community college lead-
ers (chief officers, presidents, trustees) came together to tackle common
challenges in the community college system. In combination, participants
noted that these opportunities helped them acquire critical leadership/
management skills and boosted their self-confidence. These findings sug-
gest that women in other states may want to consider creating opportuni-
ties for state-level networking across institutional type and in partnership
with the state legislature. This form of connection may be particularly
important for larger higher education institutions with more pervasive
tenure systems and formal hiring practices, where fewer people of minori-
tized genders are in the pipeline to the presidency.54 Women’s advocacy
and political alliances (promoted through the women’s state legislators
group) can be critical in changing the state environment and promoting
gender equity at higher education institutions in Maryland and in states

across the country.
Maryland’s community colleges had a strong pool of women in chief
officer positions (CAO, CSSO, CFO) between 1989 and 2006, and cur-
rently have a strong pool of women chief student services officers.55 States
lacking such a robust pipeline to the community college presidency could
consider expanding search pools to include minoritized leaders from other
states. From a feminist standpoint, future research about Maryland com-
munity colleges could try to understand MACC’s ability to influence the
number of people of color and LGBTQ people who successfully pursue
and attain community college leadership positions in the state. Other stud-
ies could compare the presence of women in leadership positions in other
states that are progressive, metropolitan, and labor rich. They could also
compare states with similar numbers of community colleges and higher
education organization.
Overall, future research about gender and leadership in the community
college sector could explore: (1) the role of hiring, training, and appoint-
ments of community college trustees in increasing the diversity of com-
munity college presidents, (2) differences in the pathway to the presidency
and opportunities across institutional type within state systems of higher
education, (3) trends in the recruitment and appointment of minoritized
individuals to community college leadership positions, (4) the experiences
of women community college presidents of color broadly and in Maryland
specifically, and (5) the effectiveness and success of community college
presidents who assume the presidency through non-traditional pathways.
Grounded in the findings from this research, we recommend that states
interested in advancing women into the community college presidency
focus attention on (1) expanding search pools to include leaders from
student services and business affairs, (2) encouraging community college
leaders from minoritized groups to attend local and national leadership
institutes, and (3) creating a culture of mentoring within and among
community college leaders in the state. Recent attention to evaluating
the community college presidency based on student success offers some
specific approaches to preparing leaders for the presidency, including:
understanding legislative and financial structures, building relationships
with industry, building relationships with a diverse set of constituents,
and developing and implementing entrepreneurial approaches to raising
revenue.56
Based on the organizational leadership perspectives gathered in the

course of this research, higher education search committees should care-
fully consider candidates who have not been in a previous presidency
to ensure the door to the presidency continues to be open to younger
leaders from minoritized groups. Findings from this study also suggest
that studying the individual and collective agency among higher educa-
tion presidents of minoritized groups (along with the structural, human
resource, political, and cultural factors that support their agency) could
help us understand how to support college leaders who identify along
the continuum of gender identity, particularly academic leaders with
families.
Conclusion
Our hope is that this chapter has contributed to one of the goals of
this book, namely to stimulate conversations, research and practice that
address the lack of gender diversity in top leadership positions at colleges
and universities across institutional type. A multi-framed approach to this
research that included feminist standpoint theory facilitated a complex
and intricate examination of gender and leadership in a higher education
setting. This approach brought forward the critical perspectives of various
stakeholders in the study, demonstrating that people of all genders played
a part in advancing women leaders to community college presidencies in
Maryland. Using a multiple framed approach to continue studying the
issue of gender and leadership in higher education could lead to additional
understanding of the various intersections between policies, practices,
leadership programs, alliances, mentor programs and individual/collec-
tive agency as it relates to advancing people from minoritized genders into
higher education leadership positions.
This study and other contributions to this book confirm that issues
related to gender, race and advancement to the top leadership posi-
tions in higher education still fester in our institutions. An anti-deficit
approach to studying these challenges enables the identification of on-
ramps for women pursuing community college leadership positions and
points to potential strategies for other minoritized leaders seeking a col-
lege presidency. Most significantly, the higher education leaders of all
genders in this study provide a positive example of how institutional cul-
ture can be challenged and changed to advance gender inclusion at these
institutions.
Notes
1. Cook and Young, The American College President; King and
Gomez, On the Pathway to the Presidency: Characteristics of Higher
Education’s Senior Leadership.
Organizations.”
3. Yoder, “Rethinking Tokenism: Looking Beyond Numbers.”
4. Nevarez and Wood, Community College Leadership and
Administration: Theory, Practice, and Change.
5. Maryland Association of Community Colleges, Directory of
Maryland Community Colleges.
6. American Council on Education [ACE], The American College
President: 20th Anniversary; Cook and Young, The American
College President.
7. Cohen and Brawer, The American Community College; Cook and
Young, The American College President; Hagedorn and Laden,
“Exploring the Climate for Women as Community College
Faculty”; Garza Mitchell and Eddy, “In the Middle: Career
Pathways of Midlevel Community College Leaders.”
8. Collins, “Comment on Hekman’s ‘Truth and Method: Feminist
Standpoint Theory Revisited’”; Hawkesworth, “Analyzing
Backlash: Feminist Standpoint Theory as Analytical Tool”; hooks,
Talking Back: Thinking Feminist, Thinking Black; Teaching to
Transgress; Jaggar, “Introduction: The Project of Feminist
Methodology.”
9. Bolman and Deal, Modern Approaches to Understanding and
Managing Organizations; Reframing Organizations; Reframing
Organizations: Artistry, Choice, and Leadership.
10. Bolman and Deal, Reframing Organizations: Artistry, Choice, and
Leadership.
11. Cohen and Brawer, The American Community College; Hagedorn
and Laden, “Exploring the Climate for Women as Community
College Faculty”; Keim and Murray, “Chief Academic Officers’
Demographics and Educational Backgrounds”; McKenney and
Cejda, “Profiling Chief Academic Officers in Public Community
Colleges”; Murray, Murray and Summar, “The Propensity of
Community College Chief Academic Officers to Leave an
Institution”; Perna, “Sex and Race Differences in Faculty Tenure
And Promotion”; Phelps, Taber and Smith, “African American

Community College Presidents”; Shaw, Callahan, and Lechasseur,
“Female Faculty in the Community College: Approaching Equity
in a Low-Status Sector”; Weisman and Vaughan, “The Community
College Presidency: 2006.”
12. Center for the Education of Women [CEW], Family-Friendly

Policies in Higher Education: Where do we Stand?; Perna, “Sex and
Race Differences in Faculty Tenure And Promotion”; Marschke,
Laursen, Nielsen, and Rankin, “Demographic Inertia Revisited:
An Immodest Proposal to Achieve Equitable Gender Representation
Among Faculty in Higher Education”; Shaw, Callahan, and
Lechasseur, “Female Faculty in the Community College:
Approaching Equity in a Low-Status Sector”; Wolf-Wendel and
Ward, “Faculty Work and Family Life.”
Leadership.
14. American Association of Community Colleges. CEO Characteristics;
Crosson, Douglas, O’Meara, and Sperling, “Editor’s Choice: A
Community College Leadership Academy: Developing Leaders for
Massachusetts”; Eggins, Women as Leaders and Managers in
Higher Education; Madsen, On Becoming a Woman Leader:
Learning from the Experiences of University Presidents; Perna, “Sex
and Race Differences in Faculty Tenure and Promotion”; Sullivan,
“Informal Learning Among Women Community College
Presidents”; Reille and Kezar, “Balancing the Pros and Cons of
Community College ‘Grow-Your-Own’ Leadership Programs”;
VanDerLinden, “Gender Differences in the Preparation and
Promotion of Community College Administrators”; Vincent, “A
Qualitative Analysis of Community College Leadership from the
Leading Forward Summits.”
15. Crosson, Douglas and O’Meara, “Editor’s Choice: A Community
College Leadership Academy: Developing Leaders for
Massachusetts”; Madsen, On Becoming a Woman Leader: Learning
from the Experiences of University Presidents; Perna, “Sex and Race
Differences in Faculty Tenure And Promotion.”
Leadership.
17. Acker, “Inequality Regimes Gender, Class, and Race in

Organizations”; Allan, “Constructing Women’s Status: Policy
Discourses of University Women’s Commission Reports”: Glazer-

Raymo, Unfinished Agendas: New and Continuing Gender
Challenges in Higher Education; Townsend and Twombly,
Community Colleges: Policy in the Future Context; West and Curtis
AAUP Faculty Gender Equity Indicators 2006.
18. Allan, “Constructing Women’s Status: Policy Discourses Of

University Women’s Commission Reports”; Glazer-Raymo,
Unfinished Agendas: New and Continuing Gender Challenges in
Higher Education; Wickens, “The Organizational Impact of
University Labor Unions.”
Leadership.
20. Bailey, “Work and Life Balance: Community College Occupational
Deans”; Bechtold, “Theorizing Gender for Community College
Research and Practice”; Cooper and Pagotto, “Developing
Community College Faculty as Leaders”; Dominici, Fried and
Zeger, “So Few Women Leaders”; Eddy, “Leading Gracefully:
Gendered Leadership at Community Colleges”; Eddy and Cox,
“Gendered Leadership: An Organizational Perspective”; Garza-
Mitchell and Eddy, “In the Middle: Career Pathways of Midlevel
Community College Leaders”; Green, “Reflections from one
Community College Leader”; Hagedorn and Laden, “Exploring
the Climate for Women as Community College Faculty”; Muñoz,
“In Their Own Words and by the Numbers: A Mixed-Methods
Study of Latina Community College Presidents”; Opp and Gosetti,
“Women Full-Time Faculty of Color In 2-Year Colleges: A Trend
and Predictive Analysis”; Townsend and Twombly, “Accidental
Equity: The Status of Women in the Community College”; Ward
and Wolf- Wendel, “Choice and Discourse in Faculty Careers:
Feminist Perspectives on Work and Family.”
21. Hagedorn and Laden, “Exploring the Climate for Women as

Community College Faculty”; Townsend and Twombly,
“Accidental Equity: The Status Of Women in the Community
College.”
22. Collins, Black Feminist Thought: Knowledge, Consciousness, and the
Politics of Empowerment; Hawkesworth, “Analyzing Backlash:
Feminist Standpoint Theory as Analytical Tool”; hooks, Talking
Back: Thinking Feminist, Thinking Black; Teaching to Transgress;
Jaggar, “Introduction: The Project of Feminist Methodology”;
Sprague, Feminist Methodologies for Critical Researchers: Bridging

Differences.
23. Bechtold, “Theorizing Gender for Community College Research
and Practice”; Eddy and Cox, “Gendered Leadership: An
Organizational Perspective”; Garza-Mitchell and Eddy, “In the
Middle: Career Pathways of Midlevel Community College
Leaders”; Muñoz, “In Their Own Words and by the Numbers: A
Mixed-Methods Study of Latina Community College Presidents”;
Ward & Wolf-Wendel, “Choice and Discourse in Faculty Careers:
Feminist Perspectives on Work and Family.”
24. Eddy and Cox, “Gendered Leadership: An Organizational

Perspective”; Garza-Mitchell and Eddy, “In the Middle: Career
Pathways of Midlevel Community College Leaders”; Muñoz, “In
Their Own Words and by the Numbers: A Mixed-Methods Study
of Latina Community College Presidents.”
Leadership.
Standpoint Theory Revisited’”; Hawkesworth, “Analyzing Backlash:
Feminist Standpoint Theory as Analytical Tool”; hooks, Talking
Back: Thinking Feminist, Thinking Black; Teaching to Transgress;
Jaggar, “Introduction: The Project of Feminist Methodology.”
27. Yin, “Case Study Research: Design and Methods.”
28. Maryland Association of Community Colleges MDACC website:
http://www.mdacc.org/colleges/colleges.html
29. Collins, “What’s Going on? Black Feminist Thought and the

Politics of Postmodernism”; Tolbert, Simons, Andrews and Rhee,
“The Effects of Gender Composition in Academic Departments
on Faculty Turnover.”
30. Mertens, Research and Evaluation in Education and Psychology:
Integrating Diversity with Quantitative, Qualitative, and Mixed
Methods.
31. Martin, “An Exploratory Examination of the Factors Contributing
to the Increasing Presence of Women Presidents in Maryland
Community Colleges.”
Leadership.
Standpoint Theory Revisited’”; Hawkesworth, “Analyzing
Backlash: Feminist Standpoint Theory as Analytical Tool”; Hooks,

Talking Back: Thinking Feminist, Thinking Black; Teaching to
Transgress; Jaggar, “Introduction: The Project of Feminist
Methodology.”
34. Creswell, Research design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed
Methods Approaches, 156.
35. Kvale and Brickman, Interviews: Learning the Craft of Qualitative
Research Interviewing.
36. Bock, “Women Made Career Strides in 1980s Census Data Show
Marked Md. Gains.”
37. U.S. Census Bureau, “A Half-Century of Learning: Historical

Census Statistics on Educational Attainment in the United States,
1940 to 2000: Graphs: Maryland.”
38. Lakin Institute. President’s Round Table, a National Network of
African American Community College.
39. Shults, “The Critical Impact of Impending Retirements on

Community College Leadership”; Vaughan and Weisman,
“Leadership Development: The Role of the President-Board
Team.”
40. Eggins, Women as Leaders and Managers in Higher Education;
ACE Women’s Network, “Our History”: American Council on
Education, National Identification Program.
42. Maryland Commission for Women. “Number of Doctoral Degrees
Awarded by Program in Maryland Colleges And Universities,
1970 and 1982”; Maryland Commission for Women. Family
Oriented Personnel Policies: A Task Force Report; Maryland
Commission for Women. Number of Faculty at Maryland’s Public
and Private Colleges and Universities, 1972 and 1981, 31;
Maryland Commission for Women. Maryland Department of
Human Relations.
43. Maryland Higher Education Commission; Maryland Higher

Education Commission. (Jan. 1996). The Status of Women in
Maryland Public Higher Education, 1984–1994; Maryland Higher
Education Commission, A Survey of Collaborative Projects of
Maryland Postsecondary Institutions. Maryland Higher Education
Commission, A Study of the Workforce Needs of Maryland Employees.

45. Ibid.
46. Weisman and Vaughan, “The Community College Presidency:

2006.”
48. Ibid.
49. Postsecondary Governance Structures Database; MACC, 2008
50. O’Meara, Campbell, and Terosky, “Living Agency in the Academy:
A Conceptual Framework for Research and Action.”

Organizations”; Collins, Black Feminist Thought: Knowledge,
Consciousness, and the Politics of Empowerment.
52. Glazer-Raymo, Unfinished Agendas: New and Continuing Gender

Organizations.”
54. Kulis, “Gender Segregation among College and University

Employees.”
56. Achieving the Dream, Inc. and The Aspen Institute, Crisis and
Opportunity: Aligning the Community College Presidency with
Student Success.
CHAPTER 5
Higher Education Policy: Disrupting

the Structures that Bind Us
Susan V. Iverson and Elizabeth J. Allan
Policy initiatives, curricular reform, research, and grassroots organizing

have all contributed to advancing equity and shaping women’s status in US
higher education. Significant gains have been made in women’s access to
and representation in higher education as evidenced by enrollment figures
and graduation rates. Women today are more likely than men to complete
college and attend graduate school, and they comprise half the American
workforce.1 Yet, these measures are only part of the full gender equity
picture. For instance, when taken in aggregate, enrollment data does not
portray the persistent lack of gender parity among students studying engi-
neering, computer science, and other science and technology fields; nei-
ther does it reflect the persistent wage gap, nor does it depict the quality
of classroom and campus experiences.2
The numbers alone (whether aggregated or disaggregated) do not
convey how women continue to report working and studying in climates
that privilege masculine perspectives, and approaches to organizing and
S.V. Iverson (*)

Manhattanville College, School of Education, Purchase, NY, USA
E.J. Allan
University of Maine, College of Education and Human Development,
Orono, ME, USA

88 S.V. IVERSON AND E.J. ALLAN
leading that tend to disadvantage women.3 Further, the data reveal that
women studying and working in postsecondary institutions bump up
against glass ceilings, or remain trapped on sticky floors; experience pay
disparities linked to gender; and the threat and reality of sexual harassment
and violence continues to interfere with workplace and living environ-
ments on campuses.4 Climate-related issues like these, along with com-
plexities associated with demographic differences like race, sexual identity
and socioeconomic status among women, all contribute to shaping wom-
en’s experiences in higher education and therefore should be considered
when assessing progress toward gender equity.
Policies often emerge as solutions to inequity. More than four decades
have passed since key legislation, including the Equal Pay Act of 1963,
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and Title IX of 1972, codi-
fied solutions to gender disparities. Yet, ample evidence attests that gen-
der equity has not been achieved and this reality raises questions about
the role of policy. Consider, for example, in 1990, Congress enacted the
“Student Right-to-Know and Campus Security Act,” requiring (among
other things) that postsecondary institutions in the USA disclose cam-
pus security information, including crime statistics for the campus and
surrounding areas. This act has undergone many revisions, including an
amendment in 1992 that broadened sexual assault reporting and added
required sexual assault policy statements. In 1998, additional categories
(e.g., manslaughter and arson) and expanded definitions, including modi-
fied language about who is (or is not) a “campus security authority,” were
mandated under the “Jeanne Clery Disclosure of Campus Security Policy
and Campus Crime Statistics Act.”5 Since U.S. Vice President Joe Biden’s
and Secretary of Education Arne Duncan’s “Dear Colleague” letter of
2011 assertively reminded and clarified extant policy mandates, including
that campuses must adopt and publish procedures, the federal push for
sexual violence policy reform on campuses has only increased.6 Still, the
problem of campus sexual violence endures, and has, indeed, taken center
stage in higher education news in recent years.
In this chapter we argue, alongside others, that we must maintain
important momentum for advancing gender equity through policy, yet
also critically examine how policy problems are framed rather than pur-
sue policy solutions based on acceptance of how a problem is defined. In
this chapter, we describe how feminist poststructural perspectives (FPS),
and policy discourse analysis (PDA) in particular, serve as tools for uncov-
ering assumptions embedded in college and university policies in U.S.
HIGHER EDUCATION POLICY: DISRUPTING THE STRUCTURES THAT BIND US 89
postsecondary education.7 Such assumptions are often shaped by domi-

nant discourses that privilege some understandings while eclipsing others.
The methods of PDA help to illuminate what is often taken-for-granted in
policy problems and in so doing, opens up space for thinking differently
about strategies for solving problems targeted by policies. Dominant dis-
courses, including those shaping perceptions of gender, can serve as pow-
erful scaffolding for oppressive practices primarily because these discourses
are rarely called into question. In keeping with the critical focus of this
volume, we describe PDA, not only for its rigor as a research tool, but also
as a mechanism for disrupting the status quo and promoting more inclu-
sive structures and practices. To illustrate a current application of the PDA
method, we highlight preliminary findings from Susan Iverson’s policy dis-
course analysis of university sexual violence policies8 to demonstrate how
PDA exposes policy assumptions and dominant discourses shaping those
assumptions, which can serve to undercut intended outcomes of policies.
This undermining of policy outcomes is particularly troubling when poli-
cies are implemented to promote equity and advance social justice.
Policy Perspectives and Approaches to Analysis
When considering whether or not politics and values are legitimate com-
ponents of the policy process, the differences between rational scientific
and the political rationalist models are significant.9 However, feminist
policy scholar Carol Bacchi argues that both approaches operate within
a “problem solution” orientation.10 Thus, both models share the com-
mon goal of working toward better ways of solving an identified policy
problem. In contrast, recent scholarship from critical and poststructural
feminist perspectives suggests that traditional policy studies methods fall
short because they typically proceed from an acceptance of policy prob-
lems and tend not to analyze the assumptions undergirding their articula-
tion.11 More specifically, Deborah Stone argues that traditional approaches
to policy are connected to a production model that suggests policy can be
formulated in an orderly sequence of steps akin to the rational decision-
making process.12 In contrast, Stone posits that “ideas are the medium of
exchange and a mode of influence even more powerful than money and
votes and guns.”13 Accordingly, it is in this realm—the struggle over ideas
and the formation of shared meanings—where traditional approaches to
policy analysis may fall short and where alternatives, such as feminist policy
studies, are needed to examine the “seldom scrutinized … beliefs con-
cerning the nature of facts and values, the powers of reason, the structure
of science, and the possibilities for scientific knowledge—beliefs so widely
accepted by practitioners in the field that they are no longer perceived
as issues.”14 These beliefs, erroneously presumed to be gender neutral,
contribute to a traditionally held view that policy theory and analysis can
somehow stand apart from the political. Feminist critiques, in contrast,
suggest policy study and practice are value-driven (and gender-laden)
endeavors that serve particular political interests.15
Feminist perspectives foreground power dynamics related to gender
and other identity formations (e.g., race, sexual identity, social class) and
examine how these are implicated in social policy at all levels.16 Feminist
policy analysis has historically emphasized ways in which policy produces
uneven effects for men and women. As well, feminist policy analysts in
general, and especially those from poststructural perspectives, have worked
to illuminate the ways in which power operates through policy by drawing
attention to hidden assumptions or policy silences and unintended conse-
quences of policy practices.17
Policy-as-Discourse
Conventional approaches to policy analysis typically position policy as reg-
ulating social relations through a repressive process of proscribing certain
behaviors as unacceptable, unwanted and prohibited. In contrast, post-
structural understandings of policy-as-discourse view it as regulating social
relations primarily through positive or productive means. In this chapter,
we proceed from an understanding of discourse as a dynamic constella-
tion of words and images that legitimate and produce a given reality. As
Stephen Ball delineated, policy is simultaneously both “as [discourse] and
in discourse.”18 Additionally, a view of policy-as-discourse emphasizes the
productive power of policy to shape what is known, as Catherine Marshall
explained,
Debates over education policy are power conflicts over which knowledge is
the “truth.” Those who control the discourse discredit or marginalize other
“truths.” Thus, debates over required curriculum, the canon and require-
ments for professional credentials are power/knowledge struggles.19
A view of policy-as-discourse shapes understandings of policy as actively

circulating, intervening, and intervened upon at micro-levels of society,
and enmeshed in a complex and contradictory process of negotiation. This

perspective serves to disrupt and displace traditional approaches to policy
analysis by highlighting how policy actively produces subjects, knowledge,
and perceived truths.
From a poststructural view, policy is a means by which subjectivities,
hierarchies, and taxonomies for understanding the social world are pro-
duced. For instance, policy discourses in education support the produc-
tion of normative behavior through policy initiatives like educational
standards, common core, efficient use of resources, faculty/teacher pro-
ductivity, diversity, and calls for more scientific rigor.20
In her book on policy research in educational settings, Jenny Ozga sug-
gests that policy texts and the discourses shaping them serve as important
resources for considering “the story about what is possible or desirable
to achieve through education policy.”21 A narrative approach to policy
foregrounds analysis of the source of the policy, its scope and pattern.
However, a narrative or textual approach to policy analysis is not neces-
sarily poststructural. Poststructural approaches often draw upon the work
of Foucault and foreground policy as a technology of governmentality
that operates within complex discursive networks to produce disciplined
bodies that regulate themselves as much as they are regulated by external
influences.22
As discursive formations, policies produce subject positions that con-
tribute to shaping identities. Stephen Ball explains, “we are spoken by
policies [and] we take up the positions constructed for us within poli-
cies.”23 As such, poststructural policy analysis examines subject positions
constructed via policy as a means of learning how policy contributes to
shaping subjectivity. For instance, in Elizabeth Allan’s analysis of policy
efforts to promote gender equity in higher education, she found that dis-
courses drawn upon to describe gender/sex-based discrimination tended
to reinforce images of women as vulnerable, fearful, and in need of protec-
tion.24 To address the threat of gender-based violence on campus, policy
recommendations included calls for more campus lighting, availability of
escorts so that women did not need to walk alone to their cars or residence
halls after dark, and self-defense trainings.
A primary task of a poststructural approach to policy analysis is to
describe the process by which discourses become inscribed within indi-
vidual and social relations.25 Thus, a poststructural approach to policy
analysis seeks to: (a) describe subject positions produced through policy
discourses; (b) highlight assumptions embedded in the framing of policy
problems and solutions; and (c) re/consider the modernist ameliorative

missions embedded in humanist discourses that inhere in traditional (and
critical) policy theory and practice.
In sum, an understanding of policy-as-discourse illuminates how policy
produces conditions of possibility for thought and action.26 Given this,
one may only be able to conceive of possible policy solutions through
the knowledge and subject positions that discourses make available to
us. Poststructural approaches to policy analysis acknowledge how policy
reinforces an ensemble of normative judgments about the correct way to
solve “social problems.”27 In working to expose the discursive framing
of policies while displacing the taken-for-grantedness of policy problems,
poststructural approaches embrace complexity and messiness while help-
ing to shift the focus from finding answers to finding ways to think dif-
ferently to improve practice.28 Coupling poststructural approaches with
feminism places an emphasis on women and gender as key analytic catego-
ries, revealing gender biases embedded in policy.29
Policy Discourse Analysis

In contrast to conventional approaches to policy analysis, feminist post-
structural (FPS) approaches to policy analysis emphasize the examination
of: (a) the process by which policy problems are defined; (b) the influence
of identity differences in the shaping of policy problems and solutions; (c)
the ways in which policy as discourse not only reflects, but also contributes
to producing subjectivities and sociopolitical realities.30
Discourse analysis that is both feminist and poststructural does not
adhere to a singular definition; however, generally speaking, some com-
mon questions and strategies characterize the approach. These include:
(a) tracing the discursive shaping of policy problem(s) by asking ques-
tions like, “What discourses make it possible for this issue to be identi-
fied as problematic? What discourses make it possible for this approach to
be identified as high-quality?” (b) identifying the subject positions that
emerge from policy discourses, and (c) applying a feminist lens to the
analysis.
Building on shared tenets of poststructuralism and feminism, policy
discourse analysis (PDA) is described as a hybrid methodology specifi-
cally for the study of policy.31 This approach emerges from the conceptual
tensions that inhere in models of policy analysis across several paradigms.
While PDA is most profoundly influenced by feminism and poststructural-
ism, it also incorporates specific methods and approaches from interpretive

and critical theory frames of inquiry. Cutting across these paradigms, PDA
incorporates a range of investigatory approaches with the goals of under-
standing, liberation, and destabilization.32
PDA proceeds from the premise that policy-making and analysis are
discursive practices that both reflect and produce culture. Influenced by
textual analysis, critical discourse analysis, and poststructural methods of
deconstruction, archaeology, genealogy, and feminist appropriations of the
same, PDA provides a specific method for examining policy discourses and
the subject positions produced by them. As a method, PDA was inspired,
in part, by feminist desires to examine how well-intentioned attempts to
advance equity policy may unwittingly perpetuate discourses and prac-
tices that reinforce inequity. Typically, dominant discourses embedded in
policy, including discourses shaping understandings about gender, are so
normalized they are rarely called into question. PDA illuminates these
discourses to examine policy problems and solutions in new ways.
In what follows, we draw upon Susan Iverson’s analysis of postsec-
ondary policies on sexual violence33 to illustrate how PDA can provide
researchers and practitioners with a lens for “unthinking” and thinking dif-
ferently about policy problems and solutions. This approach is particularly
important if we are to keep gender and other identity formations as a focus
and offer alternative ways of thinking about solutions to promote equity.
Analyzing Sexual Violence Policies

The data for Susan Iverson’s analysis included 22 sexual violence poli-
cies from 22 recipients34 of 2012 U.S. Department of Justice’s Office of
Violence against Women (DOJ-OVW) campus grants (see Table 5.1).
Applicants for these grants must articulate how their proposed initiatives
will strengthen the response of their campuses to the crimes of sexual
assault, domestic violence, dating violence and stalking on campuses,
and how such efforts will enhance collaboration among campuses, local
law enforcement, and victim advocacy organizations. The rationale for
sampling policies from these 22 campuses was that as recipients of fed-
eral funds to address sexual violence on their campuses, these campuses
have (or are conducting revisions of) sexual violence policies. It was not
assumed that these were model policies or reflected best practices; rather,
these campuses are known to be committing focused (and funded) efforts
to the problem of sexual violence on their campuses.
Iverson employed PDA to ask: What are the assumptions inherent in

the naming of the policy problem? What subject positions emerge from a
particular policy or group of policies? How are gender and other aspects of
identity implicated? What is discursively produced through the policy text?
Iverson’s analyses revealed a discourse of risk. Sexual violence, the policies
assert, is “severe and pervasive” (University of North Carolina at Chapel
Hill) and thus, individuals (typically women) are at-risk and vulnerable
to being “taken advantage of” (University of Montana). The ubiquity of
sexual violence on campus also poses risk to colleges and universities that
face potential legal consequences and damage to an institution’s reputa-
tion. Accordingly, the discourse of risk also situates institutional agents as
risk managers of sexual violence offenses. Further, a discourse of depen-
dency, intersecting with the discourse of risk, constructs the dependent
victim, reliant on the institution to keep her/him safe and supported.
Additionally, a discourse of rationality, which gives rise to the reasonable
person, intersects with the discourse of risk, enabling the risk manager to
objectively evaluate and act upon complaints of sexual violence. In this
chapter, we do not seek to provide a full account of the findings from the
study,35 but instead illustrate what analyzing policy-as-discourse reveals
about policy as a solution to one type of gender disparity in higher educa-
tion and beyond. More specifically, we explore the question: What has been
produced through college and university sexual violence policies?
What Sexual Violence Policies Have Produced

Our use of FPS and PDA draws upon the work of Michel Foucault, who
conceptualizes power as a productive force exercised through discourse;
meaning, discourse produces social identities (subjectivities) and re/pro-
duces particular realities.36 Such power, exercised through “disciplining
practices,” shapes individuals’ ways of thinking and acting; in part through
“an increase of obedience and allegiance” to a perceived norm, but also
through “ordering and organizing” practices and relationships.37 Foucault
refers to this power as “disciplinary power” that shifts analyses from macro
structures and ideologies to power at “its capillary form of existence, the
point where power reaches into the very grain of individuals, touches
their bodies and inserts itself in their action and attitudes, their discourses,
learning process and everyday lives.”38 This disciplinary power is deployed
through “techniques of power” that Foucault illustrates using the meta-
phor of the Panopticon, an institutional building designed by Bentham
in the eighteenth century to enable all parts of the structure to be vis-

ible from a single point. These techniques of power, including normaliza-
tion, (self)regulation, surveillance, and totalization, are micro-practices of
power “functioning at the level of the body.”39 We draw upon Foucault’s
analysis of power to interpret data and illustrate how specific techniques of
power are exercised through sexual violence policies in higher education.
Normalization Normalization, as a technique of power, serves to invoke

or require conformity to a standard (that which is “normal”). In sexual
violence policies, this “norm” is evident in the “reasonable person” stan-
dard used in law for determining offenses:
Whether certain kinds of behavior should be deemed harmful or offensive

and thus punishable. The “reasonable person” is supposed to represent
community norms; thus whatever would offend or harm “a reasonable per-
son” is said to be more generally offensive or harmful.40
In sexual violence policies, this reasonableness standard is used to evalu-

ate whether offenses of sexual misconduct “would cause a reasonable
person to feel fear” (Loyola University, italics added); or if such conduct
“creates an environment that a reasonable person would find intimidat-
ing, hostile, or offensive” (University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill,
italics added). The reasonableness standard is used to define terms, such
as stalking, as conduct “that would cause a reasonable person to feel fear”
(Clark University, italics added), or to describe retaliation as actions that
“would deter a reasonable person in the same circumstances from opposing
practices prohibited by this policy” (University of Montana, italics added).
Notably, feminist scholars in the 1990s challenged the generalizability
of the “reasonable person,” arguing that men and women will experience
sexual violence differently.41 A “reasonable woman” standard emerged
and gained acceptance as a more appropriate measure of (gendered) mis-
conduct such as sexual harassment, rape, and domestic violence; however,
this alternative standard also encountered much criticism.42 Robert Adler
and Ellen Peirce, for instance, argued that if a unique standard was needed
for women, then analogous standards would have to be adopted for “cases
involving race, color, religion, or national origin” and that tailoring the
reasonable standard to every identity group (e.g., “reasonable Haitians”)
would “prove to be an insuperable task.”43 Jill Blumenthal suggested
adopting “the ‘reasonable victim,’ rather than the ‘reasonable woman’”

arguing that “the reasonable victim standard subsumes other potential dif-
ferences, emphasizing the exploitative nature” of sexual violence.44
That sexual violence policies have adhered to the reasonable person
(rather than reasonable woman) standard may be due to shifts in policy
language that seek to ungender the identities of victims and perpetrators.
For instance, most policies refer to sexual misconduct as offenses commit-
ted “by a man or woman upon a man or woman.” Yet, it is important to
recall that no matter the “reasonability” standard, the criteria for evaluat-
ing whether a sexual assault has really occurred represents “the university’s
interests as opposed to any particular individual’s interests.”45 Further,
if (when) the subjective (victim’s embodied) experience is misaligned
with the objective (reasonable) view, the “unreasonable conduct” may be
reconstructed as consensual sex, or the victim may be reconstructed as
unreasonable, risky, or irresponsible. As such, the policy discourses serve
to normalize as they shape understandings and images of the reasonable
person who “is at once a field of comparison, a space of differentiation and
the principle of a rule to be followed.”46 This leads to questions about what
“certain things count as reasonable?”,47 for herein lie the rules that sustain
the norm, enabling “normalizing judgement”48 to which we regulate.
Regulation Regulation, another technique of power, focuses on the invo-

cation of rules to which individuals are compliant and obedient. While
sexual assault “rules” (particularly at the federal level) have grown expo-
nentially in the last 25 years, the regulatory power of the rule, as Foucault
observes, “occupies” individual bodies who self-regulate and discipline49;
or as Jennifer Gore states, regulation is “enacted at the site of the body.”50
As attention to compliance increases on university and college campuses,
regulation is exercised by individuals on an institutional level, a depart-
mental (or unit) level, and a personal level.
The legislative, and subsequent institutional policy, attention to sexual

violence on American campuses has had a paradoxical effect of reinforc-
ing the ubiquity of sexual violence. Campuses have seen no change in the
rates of sexual violence since passage of the 1990 Campus Right to Know
Act (now known as the Clery Act); rather, the prevalence of the significant
dangers presented (largely to women) in both public and private spaces
remains pronounced and at times, amplified. Drawing from a Foucauldian
lens, policies designed to “discipline” behaviors on campus, then, may
only be symbolically repressive, and are instead productive or constitutive

of behaviors and perceptions. Sexual violence policies may be a “reac-
tion to the ‘fact’ of rape” and social actors (e.g., practitioners, students)
unwittingly collude in “the perpetration of a logic which makes rape a
seemingly fixed reality.”51 Male sexual dominance and female passivity are
promoted culturally as normative (heterosexual) relations and, as many
feminist scholars have noted, these internalized and naturalized models of
gender and sexuality are “barely indistinguishable culturally from rape.”52
Sexual violence policies over the past 25 years have undergone a shift
from largely resistance-based definitions of sexual violence to consent-
based definitions. The former, resistance-based definitions (e.g., use of
force, against one’s will), which dominate legal definitions, remain in
some policies. However the latter, consent-based language, which became
infamous in 1991 when Antioch College (OH) incorporated the “ver-
bal and willing” definition into its sexual violence policy,53 have reframed
sexual violence as “non-consensual” sexual activity. And a few, as seen in
Wheaton’s policy, blend both in their definitions: sexual assault as “forc-
ing, threatening, or coercing an individual into sexual contact against the
individual’s free will with or without the individual’s consent.”
Additionally, shifts in policy language have detached sexual violence
from gendered (and heteronormative) assumptions; today, most policies
describe sexual violence as an activity committed “by a man or woman
upon a man or woman.” This distinction has yielded, however, descrip-
tions and definitions of sexual misconduct that delineate offensive behav-
iors without an agent. The University of Montana’s policy (not uniquely)
exemplifies this: “Sexual Misconduct includes sexual assault, inducing
incapacitation for sexual purposes, sexual exploitation, and relationship
violence. Sexual Assault means an actual or attempted sexual contact with
another person without that person’s consent” (italics in original). As evi-
dent in the data excerpt, the victim has (limited) subjectivity: “another
person” and “that person”; however, the person committing the behaviors
(the “initiator of the sexual activity,” as indicated in Clark University’s
policy), is largely invisible.
As Patti Lather notes, policy then serves to “regulate behavior and
render populations productive via state intervention in and regulation of
the everyday lives of citizens in a ‘liberal’ enough manner to minimize
resistance.”54 As the sexual violence policy examples illustrate, institutional
policies intended to regulate and repress behavior in an effort to pro-
mote more equitable campus environments are simultaneously producing
images that may contribute to undermining this goal.
Surveillance The “key to regulation by norms,” Carlos Prado indicates,

“is getting the subject to participate in his or her own surveillance.”55 As a
technique of power, surveillance functions as a form of control. However,
like Foucault’s enduring metaphor of the Panopticon, “the ‘all-seeing eye’
of a surveillance which is also a judgment… does not even have to be look-
ing to make one feel watched.”56 In this way, the subject of surveillance
“must not be aware that he or she is being made to adopt or internalize
certain norms.”57
The discourses taken up in sexual assault policies reflect the sociopo-

litical landscape while they simultaneously contribute to producing it.
Alongside the recent changes to Title IX and sexual assault policy mandates
comes a proliferation of practices that require heightened and distributed
observation. Through regulatory power and the assimilation of prescribed
policy knowledge, definitions of sexual misconduct and reasonableness
standards, behaviors, and in turn bodies, are subject to scrutiny through
what Foucault described as techniques of surveillance. Surveillance works
by instilling the belief that one is being observed at all times even if it’s not
possible for such observation to occur in actuality. The resulting supervis-
ing gaze constructs a reality where individuals self-police as they must
conform to desired behaviors at all times or face punishment.58
Did “that person” consent or not? Did s/he resist or not? Was s/he
incapacitated? Was the sexual contact “unwelcome” or was “pressure” for
sex “unreasonable”? College students, disproportionately women, are at-
risk of “being physically or mentally incapacitated,” being “taken advan-
tage of,” or of induced incapacity due to “the taking of a so-called ‘date
rape’ drug,” to “unwanted,” “deliberate,” “unwelcome,” and “inten-
tional” touching, contact, coercion, assault, exploitation, and numerous
other offenses (Fairmont State University; Humboldt State University;
Loyola University Chicago; Ohio University; Old Dominion University;
University of Mississippi; University of Montana). The vulnerable victim
is situated as fearful and at-risk, and, as Alex Campbell observes, produces
a “feminine subject marked by bodily vulnerability.”59 Vulnerable bodies
are consequently dependent upon others who possess expertise (e.g., uni-
versity personnel) to legitimize, support, and mediate the experience of
sexual violence.
Sexual violence policies delineate procedures for reporting sexual mis-
conduct. Personnel “who have received appropriate training” will take
“appropriate interim measures to protect” the “complainant” (often
also referred to as the “alleged victim”). The designated personnel will

investigate to find “sufficient information of an alleged violation” of the
policy (Bucknell University). The complainant/alleged victim must con-
form to certain rules: “submit a written and signed statement” that con-
tains “name of respondent, if known; the specific nature of the alleged
violation…; and the date, approximate time, and location of the alleged
violation, if known” (Bucknell University). This reporting information
is also described in other policies, and some note that reporting infor-
mation such as “place, date, time, type of incident, and status of those
involved” is needed “for purposes of federally mandated statistical report-
ing” (Humboldt State University). Those who surveil (those who have
received appropriate training) are also under surveillance by rules and reg-
ulations, and must also self-surveil to remain in compliance. For example,
in one policy, personnel responsible for investigating complaints of sexual
violence are also responsible for “monitoring the response of other cam-
pus offices that may respond to complaints” (Ohio University).
Surveillance applies to victims as well, who must adhere to the rules of
reporting lest they “risk the possibility” that “if a complaint is made to
anyone” other than “the proper college officials,” their complaint “may,
therefore, not be acted upon” (Humboldt State University). While poli-
cies suggest options, the risks and consequences of those choices are clear.
For instance, one policy notes that “victims or complainants” may seek
“confidential resources… [who] do not have a duty to report violations
of this policy” (e.g., to law enforcement). However, a victim’s failure to
report to proper college officials will not put the university “on notice of a
violation of this policy” (Ohio University).
In the case of sexual assault policies, an analysis of the discourses com-
pels us to ask “what is being produced here?” The federal mandates are
intended to advance equity through strengthened accountability and
incentives for institutional leaders to be proactive in responding to and
preventing sexual harassment and stalking. While it seems obvious that the
goal of the sexual assault policies and derivative protocols is to produce
a safer campus by preventing the perpetration of harassing and violent
behavior, it can be argued that the policy discourses are also inscribed on
others (non-perpetrators) through the supervising gaze and techniques of
surveillance. In this way, policy initiatives intended to constrain harmful
behavior may also produce unintended effects for those whom they seek
to protect.
Totalization Totalization, as a technique of power, assigns collective char-

acter, or constructs whole groups. For instance, dominant constructions of
sexual violence frame the problem more often as something experienced,
rather than something one does.60 For example, women are often repre-
sented as “victims of domestic violence [rather than] survivors of male
violence.”61 Policies and prevention efforts tend to individualize sexual
violence as “an expression of natural relations between two sexes,”62
rather than treat sexual and interpersonal violence as “systemic,” “struc-
tural,” and “institutional” problems.63 Further, as evidenced in analyses
of sexual violence prevention efforts and gender discourses shape images
of men as abusers (and heroes) and women as vulnerable and victims; and
(unwittingly) naturalize men’s physical power to rape and women’s vulner-
ability.64 Elizabeth Allan, in her analysis of the text of women’s commission
reports issued at four research universities, identified (among her findings)
a dominant discourse of femininity that “reinforces male dominance and
heterosexism by shaping femininity in ways that promote women’s appeal
to and dependence on men”;65 this situates women as violable, weak, fear-
ful, and a “potential object of male anger, aggression, and violence.”66
Yet, these narrow conceptualizations (i.e., at-risk, dependent victims)

reify images of the perfect victims67 and “engage us in an exercise of com-
parison and contrast about which [person] did the right thing.”68 Men are
situated as violent and “as sexual villains and the power that they manifest
through their sexuality as monolithic in contrast to women’s powerless-
ness and victim status.”69 Such a totalizing conception of femininity and
masculinity universalizes men as “always potentially violent” and women
as always already victims.70
Policy, from a rationalist perspective, fails to question the construction
of the problem, and thus policy authors are often (unwittingly) complicit
with the re/production of dominant gender discourses. We argue, and
have hopefully illustrated, that FPS and PDA are emancipatory tools that
can reveal the taken-for-granted assumptions circulating in policy, and the
ways in which policy may condemn and condone the problems it seeks to
ameliorate. Employing FPS and PDA illuminates the myriad contradictory
and competing discourses that are carried via policy, and holds the poten-
tial to reveal concealed or marginalized discourses that construct a broader
range of subjectivities (i.e., empowered, resistant, assertive, decisive) for
how individuals respond to incidents of sexual violence in a multiplicity
of ways.71
Implications: Possibilities of Resistance

In the preceding discussion, we drew upon on Foucault’s concept of
disciplinary power72 to illuminate how specific techniques of power are
exercised through sexual violence policies in higher education. Our aim
through this analysis was to offer a particular perspective that invites an
opportunity for thinking differently about gender and policy; to consider
how the discursive constitution of policy problems and solutions, “as sys-
tematic sets of meanings, regulate how we understand who we are [and]…
constrain and shape possibilities for action.”73 If social change is desired,
understanding how realities are discursively constituted can help policy
authors and practitioners be more strategic. To that end, we suggest some
implications for practice that can be applied to sexual violence policy in
particular, and more broadly to policies intended to promote inclusive and
equitable campus environments.
1. Reveal and disrupt dominant gender discourses. As illustrated by

our discussion of campus sexual assault policies, dominant construc-
tions of masculinity and femininity can be reified even as they strive
to erase gender (and other dimensions of identity) from policy.
Totalizing conceptions of femininity and masculinity situate men as
“dangerous” and “violent” and women as “passive recipients of vio-
lence.”74 This totalizing concept of femininity also “robs women of
agency or ability to exert power, express desire, take control, resist,
prevent or avoid their victimization.”75 Further, policy adherence to
dominant gender discourses fails to acknowledge sexual and gender
non-conforming identities. Not all women who are raped by men
“self-identify as ‘straight’ or heterosexual”76 or as women or as men.
The trans* population, for instance, has particularly high risk for
sexual violence coupled with very low rates of reporting,77 but is
generally absent from these policies. Thus, policy framed by domi-
nant gender discourses either excludes some individuals or demands
conformity to normative standards of masculinity and femininity.
The dominant gender order, then, continues to limit the possibility
of more egalitarian relations and equitable practices.78 The norma-
tive gender script must be made visible by those who author and
execute policy and then contested to avail a wider range of gender
performances. Inextricably linked to destabilizing dominant gender
discourses is the need to disrupt binary oppositions.
2. Problematize dualisms. A key concept in FPS thought is difference;

attention to the binaries (e.g., male/female, straight/gay) that
dominate neoliberal discourses. According to Rebecca Ropers-
Huilman, “the acceptance of these dualisms as commonsense with-
out problematizing the power relations they establish is a concern.”79
It is thus essential to “recognize the constructedness of dichotomies
and the ways in which multiple complexities are present within,
among, and between the terms that are positioned as such.”80
Consider our earlier discussion of the “reasonable person” standard:
like the “ideal worker” standard in leadership literature,81 it is seem-
ingly ungendered. Yet, feminist scholars have revealed the ways in
which these “neutral” standards are male-identified, producing real-
ities in which female and gender non-conforming individuals are
“viewed as outsiders.”82 Naming this (as discussed above) is an
important first step; however, policy authors could (erroneously)
just add difference. For instance, revealing that the “reasonable per-
son” is in actuality the “reasonable man” is important, but should
not simply mean that policy authors discern when to refer to the
“reasonable woman” instead. By extension, attention to difference
is not achieved by simply disaggregating and codifying identity dif-
ferences. A focus on only individual differences will likely do little to
interrogate “just what such differences mean beyond an apparently
increased vulnerability to violence.”83 Problematizing dualisms must
concurrently trouble normative social constructions of identity and
reveal the ways in which a dominant image of a sexual violence vic-
tim is rooted in white, middle-class femininity.84 Attention to “inter-
sectionalities” can uncover ways that sexual violence “is experienced
by self and responded to by others, how personal and social conse-
quences are represented, and how and whether …safety can be
obtained.”85 For instance, poor women of color are “most likely to
be in both dangerous intimate relationships and dangerous social
positions.”86 Thus, characterizations of victims/survivors must be
complicated to reflect the ways in which identity is socially consti-
tuted and thus sexual violence is experienced differently by (for
example) a Vietnamese woman, a black Muslim, or a Jewish lesbian,
among others.
3. Identify and deploy marginalized, sometimes concealed, discourses.
As noted, individuals inhabit multiple and competing subject posi-
tions that contain “tensions and inconsistencies” but which also
provide “openings for contestation.”87 Scholars have illuminated

ways in which discourses can be constraining, repressive and isolat-
ing, but also resistant and oppositional.88 For instance, Renee
Heberle illuminates the paradox of women’s identification as vic-
tims, which reinscribes gendered norms, enabling victimization of
women.89 Yet, representation consistent with dominant gender dis-
courses is expected for one’s experience and actions to be viewed as
reasonable. Prospects for change are contingent upon “creating dis-
cursive conditions in which survivors’ own voices will be heard and
their views and concerns taken as legitimate.”90 Practitioners must
establish the “space and opportunity” for individuals to “reach criti-
cal understanding of the ways in which they are positioned within
discourse.”91 Employing FPS and PDA illuminates the myriad con-
tradictory and competing discourses carried in policy, and holds the
potential to reveal concealed or marginalized discourses that con-
struct a broader range of possible subjectivities (i.e., empowered,
resistant, assertive, decisive) to be constituted via policy discourses.
Drawing on the PDA methods delineated in this chapter, campus pro-

fessionals can examine policies to identify embedded assumptions that may
reveal conceptualizations of gender and other aspects of identity that are
shaped by dominant discourses and therefore likely to be overlooked as
they serve to reinscribe predominant and often limiting notions of accept-
able behavior. Illuminating these dominant discourses opens up the pos-
sibility of unthinking and thinking differently about how to construct
policies that may be more effective in helping us advance more socially
just, inclusive, and equitable social arrangements.
Conclusions
In summary, PDA is a vital tool for scholars and practitioners beginning
and continuing to engage in the important work of securing and sustaining
more gender inclusive and equitable environments in higher education.
Drawing from tenets of critical, feminist, and poststructural perspectives,
PDA serves as a tool for illuminating dominant discourses circulating in
policy, making taken-for-granted policy assumptions visible, and examin-
ing how policy discourses contribute to shaping particular realities while
constraining other possibilities. This theoretical lens provides an analytic
framework that “highlights the power of discourse yet also sustains an
awareness of how gender and other forms of identity differences shape our
daily lives and serve as mechanisms of social stratification.”92 Through this
analysis of campus sexual assault policies, we foregrounded power dynam-
ics related to gender, and in our consideration of implications, argued that
it is essential to extend these analyses to other identity formations (e.g.,
race, sexual identity, social class) to examine how these too are implicated
in policy. PDA helps to illuminate contradictory and competing discourses
carried via policy, and in so doing, holds the potential to also reveal alter-
native discourses that can be drawn upon to think differently about how
gender, and other forms of identity, are constituted by discourse. Using
feminist post-structural perspectives broadly, and PDA in particular,
broadens the range of possible policy approaches for advancing gender
equity and social justice in higher education.
Table 5.1 The sample for this study includes:
Institution State Sexual misconduct policies
Samford University Alabama Title IX Sexual Misconduct Policy

(2012–13)
Humboldt State California Policy Against Sexual Harassment and
University Sexual Assault (2005)
University of California Sexual Harassment Policy (2006) and
California, Merced Protocol (2012)
Gallaudet University District of Columbia Sexual Misconduct Policy (2013–14)
(DC)
Joliet Junior College Illinois Title IX Policy on Sexual Harassment and
Assault (2012)
Loyola University, Illinois Sexual Misconduct Policy (n.d.)
Chicago
Wheaton College Illinois Sexual Assault Policy (n.d.)
Clark University Massachusetts Sexual Violence Policy (n.d.)
College of St. Minnesota Sexual Assault and Violence Policy (n.d.)
Scholastica
University of Mississippi Sexual Misconduct Policy (2012–13)
Mississippi
University of Montana Policy on Discrimination, Harassment,
Montana Sexual Misconduct, Stalking, and
Retaliation (2013)
SUNY-Stony Brook New York Sexual Harassment Policy (2008)
(continued)
Table 5.1 (continued)
Institution State Sexual misconduct policies
North Carolina North Carolina Sexual Violence Policy

Central University
University of North North Carolina Policy on Prohibited Harassment,
Carolina at Chapel Including Sexual Misconduct and
Hill Discrimination (2013)
Minot State North Dakota Policy on Harassment (2008)
University
Ohio University Ohio Sexual Misconduct Policy (2012)
Bucknell University Pennsylvania Sexual Misconduct and Relationship
Violence Policy (2013–14)
University of Tennessee Sexual Misconduct (n.d.)
Tennessee at Martin
North Central Texas Texas Student Welfare Policy on Freedom from
College Discrimination, Harassment, and
Retaliation Policy (2013)
Old Dominion Virginia Sexual Misconduct Policy (2011)
University
Virginia State Virginia Sexual Misconduct Policy (2009)
University
Fairmont State West Virginia Policy on Sexual Assault (n.d.); and
University Consolidated Student Code of Conduct
(2013)
Notes
1. Council of Economic Advisers, Women’s Participation in Education
and the Workforce: A Whitehouse Report.
2. Allan, Women’s Status in Higher Education: Equity Matters.
3. Bornstein, “Women and the Quest for Presidential Legitimacy”;
Eddy and Cox, “Gendered Leadership: An Organizational
Perspective”; Glazer-Raymo, Unfinished Agendas: New and
Continuing Gender Challenges in Higher Education; Sandler,
Silverberg, and Hall, The Chilly Classroom Climate: A Guide to
Improve the Education of Women; Valian, Why So Slow? The
Advancement of Women.
4. Allan, Women’s Status in Higher Education: Equity Matters; Allan,
Iverson, and Ropers-Huilman, Reconstructing Policy Analysis in
Higher Education: Feminist Poststructural Perspectives; Iverson,
“Crossing Boundaries: Understanding Women’s Advancement

from Clerical to Professional Positions”; Iverson, “The Risky
Subject: A Policy Discourse Analysis of Sexual Assault Policies in
Higher Education”; Iverson, Allan, and Gordon, “Constructing
the Double Bind: The Discursive Framing of Gendered Images of
Leadership in The Chronicle of Higher Education.”
5. Talesh, “The Clery Act: Leadership Perspectives from Senior
Student Affairs Officers.”
6. Grasgreen, “Call to Action on Sexual Harassment”; Storch,
“Sexual violence: Responding to Reports is not Enough.”
7. Allan, Policy Discourses, Gender and Education: Constructing
Women’s Status; Allan, Iverson, and Ropers-Huilman,
Reconstructing Policy Analysis in Higher Education: Feminist
Poststructural Perspectives.
8. Iverson, “The Risky Subject: A Policy Discourse Analysis of Sexual
Assault Policies in Higher Education.”
9. Some of this section is adapted from content in Allan, Iverson, and
Ropers-Huilman, Reconstructing Policy Analysis in Higher
Education: Feminist Poststructural Perspectives.
10. Bacchi, Women, Policy and Politics: The Construction of Policy
Problems, 19.

University Women’s Commission Policy Reports”; Allan, Policy
Discourses, Gender and Education: Constructing Women’s Status;
Allan, Iverson, and Ropers-Huilman, Reconstructing Policy Analysis
in Higher Education: Feminist Poststructural Perspectives; Ball,
Foucault, Power, Education; Gildersleeve and Hernandez,
“Producing (im) Possible Peoples: Policy Discourse Analysis,
In-state Resident Tuition, and Undocumented Students in
American Higher Education”; Iverson, “Constructing Outsiders:
The Discursive Framing of Access in University Diversity Policies”;
Iverson, “The Risky Subject: A Policy Discourse Analysis of Sexual
Assault Policies in Higher Education”; Pillow, “‘Bodies are
Dangerous’: Using Feminist Genealogy as Policy Studies
Methodology.”
12. Stone, Political Paradox and Political Reason; Stone, Political
Paradox: The Art of Political Decision Making.
13. Stone, Political Paradox and Political Reason, 7.
14. Hawkesworth, Theoretical Issues in Policy Analysis, 2.

Problems; Ball, Foucault and Education: Disciplines and Knowledge;
Ball, Foucault, Power, Education; Marshall, “Researching the
Margins: Feminist Critical Policy Analysis.”
16. For example, Blackmore, Troubling Women: Feminism, Leadership,
and Educational Change; Conway, Ahern and Steuernagel, Women
in Public Policy: A Revolution in Progress; Fonow and Cook,
“Feminist Methodology: New Applications in the Academy and
Public Policy”; Hunter, “Living Documents: A Feminist
Psychosocial Approach to the Relational Politics of Policy
Documentation”; Pillow, “‘Bodies are Dangerous’: Using Feminist
Genealogy as Policy Studies Methodology”; Smith, Texts, Facts,
and Femininity: Exploring the Relations of Ruling; Williams,
“Spirit-Murdering the Messenger: The Discourse of Fingerpointing
as the Law’s Response to Racism”; Winston and Bane, Gender and
Public Policy: Cases and Comments.

Discourses, Gender and Education: Constructing Women’s Status;
Bacchi, Women, Policy and Politics: The Construction of Policy
Problems; Blackmore, Troubling Women: Feminism, Leadership,
and Educational Change; Conway, Ahren, and Steuernagel, Women
in Public Policy: A Revolution in Progress; Pillow, “‘Bodies are
Dangerous’: Using Feminist Genealogy as Policy Studies
Methodology”; Pillow, “Policy Temporality and Marked Bodies:
Feminist Praxis amongst the Ruins”; Shaw, “Reaching the Parts
that Other Theories and Methods Can’t Reach: How and Why a
Policy-as-Discourse Approach Can Inform Health-Related Policy”;
Stone, Political Paradox: The Art of Political Decision Making.
18. Ball, Education Reform: A Critical and Post-Structural Approach, 21.
19. Marshall, “Researching the Margins: Feminist Critical Policy

Analysis,” 65.
Women’s Status; Allan, Iverson, and Ropers-Huilman, Reconstructing
Policy Analysis in Higher Education: Feminist Poststructural
Perspectives; Bacchi, Women, Policy and Politics: The Construction of
Policy Problems; Bacchi, “Policy and Discourse: Challenging the
Construction of Affirmative Action as Preferential Treatment”;
Ball, Foucault and Education: Disciplines and Knowledge; Ball,
Foucault, Power, Education; Blackmore, “Deconstructing Diversity

Discourses in the Field of Educational Management and
Leadership”; Pillow, “Policy Temporality and Marked Bodies:
Feminist Praxis amongst the Ruins”; St. Pierre, “Scientifically Based
Research in Education: Epistemology and Ethics.”
21. Ozga, Policy Research in Educational Settings: Contested Terrain,
95.
22. Ball, “The Necessity and Violence of Theory”; Lather, “Scientific
Research in Education: A Critical Perspective.”
23. Ball, Education Reform: A Critical and Post-Structural Approach,
22.

Discourses, Gender and Education: Constructing Women’s Status.
25. Mills, Discourse; Smith, Texts, Facts, and Femininity: Exploring the
Relations of Ruling.
26. Ball, “The Necessity and Violence of Theory”; Walker, “Simply
not Good Chaps: Unraveling Gender Equity in a South African
University.”
27. Ball, Education Reform: A Critical and Post-Structural Approach;
Marshall, “Researching the Margins: Feminist Critical Policy
Analysis”; Marshall, “Policy Discourse Analysis: Negotiating
Gender Equity”; Scheurich, “Policy Archaeology: A New Policy
Studies Methodology.”
28. Lather, “New Wave Utilization Research: (Re)imagining the

Research/Policy Nexus.”
29. Allan, Iverson, and Ropers-Huilman, Reconstructing Policy Analysis
in Higher Education: Feminist Poststructural Perspectives.
Women’s Status; Bacchi, Women, Policy and Politics: The Construction
of Policy Problems; Marshall, “Researching the Margins: Feminist
Critical Policy Analysis”; Pillow, “Policy Temporality and Marked
Bodies: Feminist Praxis amongst the Ruins.”

Discourses, Gender and Education: Constructing Women’s Status.
Women’s Status; Lather, Getting Smart: Feminist Research with/in
the Postmodern.
33. Iverson, “The Risky Subject: A Policy Discourse Analysis of Sexual

Assault Policies in Higher Education.”
34. Ibid. List of DOJ-OVW grant recipients retrieved July 31, 2013
from http://www.ovw.usdoj.gov/fy2012-grant-program.htm#2
35. For a full elaboration of this study and its findings, see Iverson,
“The Risky Subject: A Policy Discourse Analysis of Sexual Assault
Policies in Higher Education.”
36. Foucault, Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison.
37. Simola, Heikkinen and Silvonen, “A Catalog of Possibilities:

Foucaultian History of Truth and Education Research,” 68.
38. Foucault, “Truth and Power,” 39.
39. Gore, “On the Continuity of Power Relations in Pedagogy,” 167.
40. Ehrlich, “Communities of Practice, Gender, and the Representation
of Sexual Assault,” 250.
of Sexual Assault”; Hengehold, “An Immodest Proposal: Foucault,
Hysterization, and the ‘Second Rape.’”
42. Adler and Peirce, “The Legal, Ethical, and Social Implications of
the Reasonable Woman Standard in Sexual Harassment Cases”;
Blumenthal, “The Reasonable Woman Standard: A Meta-analysis
Review of Gender Differences in Perceptions of Sexual
Harassment.”
43. Adler and Peirce, “The Legal, Ethical, and Social Implications of
the Reasonable Woman Standard in Sexual Harassment Cases,”
823–824.
44. Blumenthal, “The Reasonable Woman Standard: A Meta-analysis
Review of Gender Differences in Perceptions of Sexual
Harassment,” 52.
of Sexual Assault,” 251.
46. Foucault, Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison, 182.
47. Hengehold, “An Immodest Proposal: Foucault, Hysterization,

and the ‘Second Rape,’” 95.
48. Foucault, Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison.
49. Ibid.
50. Gore, “On the Continuity of Power Relations in Pedagogy,” 172.
51. Campbell, “Keeping the ‘Lady’ Safe: The Regulation of Femininity
through Crime Prevention Literature,” 123.
52. Ibid., 126.
3. “‘Ask First’ at Antioch,” New York Times, October 11, 1993.

5
54. Lather, “Scientific Research in Education: A Critical Perspective,”
25.
55. Prado, Starting with Foucault: An Introduction to Genealogy, 91.
56. Hoskin, “Foucault Under Examination: The Crypto-educationalist
Unmasked,” 31.
57. Prado, Starting with Foucault: An Introduction to Genealogy, 91.
58. Jardine, Foucault and Education.
through Crime Prevention Literature,” 131.
60. Cahill, “Foucault, Rape, and the Construction of the Feminine
Body”; Iverson, “Performing Gender: A Discourse Analysis of
Theatre-based Sexual Violence Prevention Programs”; Iverson,
“The Risky Subject: A Policy Discourse Analysis of Sexual Assault
Policies in Higher Education.”
Problems, 190.
through Crime Prevention Literature,” 125, italics in original.
Problems; Hengehold, “An Immodest Proposal: Foucault,
Hysterization, and the ‘Second Rape’”; Iverson, “The Risky
Higher Education.”
through Crime Prevention Literature”; Carmody, “Sexual Ethics
and Violence Prevention”; Iverson, “Performing Gender: A
Discourse Analysis of Theatre-based Sexual Violence Prevention
Programs.”

University Women’s Commission Policy Reports,” 52.
66. Ibid., 53.
67. Srikantiah, “Perfect Victims and Real Survivors: The Iconic Victim
in Domestic Human Trafficking Law.”
68. Heberle, “Deconstructive Strategies and the Movement Against
Sexual Violence,” 72.
69. Carmody, “Sexual Ethics and Violence Prevention,” 201.
70. Ibid., 202.
71. Iverson, “Performing Gender: A Discourse Analysis of Theatre-

based Sexual Violence Prevention Programs”; Iverson, “The Risky
Higher Education.”
72. Foucault, Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison; Foucault,
“Truth and Power.”
73. Blackmore, Troubling Women: Feminism, Leadership, and
Educational Change, 16–17.
74.
Carmody, “Ethical Erotics: Reconceptualizing Anti-rape
Education,” 468.
75. Ibid.
76. Wooten, “Heterosexist Discourses: How Feminist Theory Shaped
Campus Sexual Violence Policy,” 47.
77. Stotzer, “Violence Against Transgender People: A Review of

United States Data.”
78. Carmody, “Sexual Ethics and Violence Prevention.”
79. Ropers-Huilman, Feminist Teaching in Theory and Practice:
Situating Power and Knowledge in Poststructural Classrooms, 8.
in Higher Education: Feminist Poststructural Perspectives, 18.
81. Gordon, Iverson, and Allan, “The Discursive Framing of Women
Leaders in Higher Education”; Iverson, Allan, and Gordon,
“Constructing the Double Bind: The Discursive Framing of
Gendered Images of Leadership in The Chronicle of Higher
Education.”
82. Bornstein, “Women and the Quest for Presidential Legitimacy,”
215.
83. Razack, “From Consent to Responsibility, From Pity to Respect:
Subtexts in Cases of Sexual Violence Involving Girls and Women
with Developmental Disabilities,” 892.
84. Carmody, “Sexual Ethics and Violence Prevention”; Iverson,

“Mapping Identities: An Intersectional Analysis of Sexual Violence
Policies.”
85. Bograd, “Strengthening Domestic Violence Theories: Intersections
of Race, Class, Sexual Orientation, and Gender,” 276.
86. Richie, Compelled to Crime: The Gender Entrapment of Battered
Black Women, 1136, emphasis added.
87. Bacchi, “Policy and Discourse: Challenging the Construction of
Affirmative Action as Preferential Treatment,” 141.
88.
Alcoff and Gray, “Survivor Discourse: Transgression or
Recuperation?”; Hengehold, “An Immodest Proposal: Foucault,
Hysterization, and the ‘Second Rape.’”
89. Heberle, “Deconstructive Strategies and the Movement Against
Sexual Violence.”
90. Westlund, “Pre-modern and Modern Power: Foucault and the
Case of Domestic Violence,” 1062.
91. Osgood, “Childcare Workforce Reform in England and ‘The Early
Years Professional’: A Critical Discourse Analysis,” 747.
in Higher Education: Feminist Poststructural Perspectives, 21.
PART II
Faculty and Staff

CHAPTER 6
Troubling Gender Norms and the Ideal

Worker in Academic Life
Jaime Lester and Margaret W. Sallee
Studies of organizational life originated with an all-male perspective, pri-

marily due to the lack of representation of women in formal organizations
and in the professoriate. In one of the earliest critiques of organizational
studies, Joan Acker and Donald Van Houten argued, “organizational the-
ory and research has been heavily weighted toward the study of male soci-
ety. Studies of top level managerial and professional workers usually focus
on men, since men are usually in positions of power and leadership.”1
The rates of female participation in the workforce changed dramatically
from 1900 to 1960 with 1 woman to every 1.8 men in 1960 compared
to a 1:4.5 ratio in 1900.2 In this 60-year period, sex segregation remained
despite the overall increase in the number of women entering the work-
force. This segregation continued into the professoriate. The National
Center for Education Statistics3 noted that women accounted for only
This chapter was a collaborative effort and both authors contributed equally.
J. Lester (*)
George Mason University, College of Humanities and Social Sciences,
Fairfax, VA, USA
M.W. Sallee
Graduate School of Education, University at Buffalo, Buffalo, NY, USA

116 J. LESTER AND M.W. SALLEE
33.2 % of all faculty in 1987, increasing to almost half in 2013; yet, these
percentages are misleading as they include part-time and full-time faculty.
Women tend to be overrepresented among part-time faculty; according to
the 2004 National Study of Postsecondary Faculty (the last year for which
these statistics are available), women accounted for 48 % of all part-time
faculty, but just 38 % of all full-time faculty.4
The introduction of gender into organizational studies did not come
with a bang, but rather via a slow documentation of sex segregation in
occupations. For example, as noted earlier, Edward Gross found that sex
segregation remained constant from 1900 to 1960 and using additional
measures, concluded that “on the whole, the trend data suggest that when
women invade a male occupation they take it over, with the results that
there is as much segregation as before, perhaps because the men leave or
take over the better jobs.”5 These studies helped to build a foundation
for future research and arguments documenting the implications of such
segregation.6 A more critical argument using the language of equity and
power did not take hold until the 1990s. The slow introduction of gender
in organizational studies is not surprising given that any mention of gen-
der would threaten the very hegemonic hold that men, particularly white
men, had on organizational scholarship.
A major moment in the study of gender and organizations came with
the 1990 publication of Joan Acker’s article, “Hierarchies, Jobs, and
Bodies: A Theory of Gendered Organizations.”7 In this article, Acker
brought together several distinct areas of inquiry8 that all examined gen-
der, but had previously not been synthesized in one cohesive and systemic
model to explore the ways in which organizations are gendered. As Acker
explained, “to say that an organization, or any other analytic unit, is gen-
dered means that advantage and disadvantage, exploitation and control,
action and emotion, meaning and identity, are patterned through and in
terms of a distinction between male and female, masculine and feminine.”9
According to Acker, gendering occurs through five interacting processes:
(a) construction of divisions along lines of gender; (b) construction of
symbols and images; (c) production of gendered social interactions; (d)
creation of gendered components of individual identity; and, (e) implicit
and fundamental creation and conceptualization of gendered social struc-
tures.10 The article quickly became a seminal article in the field, appearing
in multiple texts on the classics of organizational theory.11 Since its pub-
lication, Acker’s article has been cited over 4,000 times according to an
early 2016 Google Scholar search. Her work has framed much of the
TROUBLING GENDER NORMS AND THE IDEAL WORKER IN ACADEMIC LIFE 117
literature on gender in organizations12 and helped to spark later feminist

work by Marta Calás and Linda Smircich, Robin Ely and Debra Meyerson,
and Dana Britton, among others.13
In addition to introducing gender into organizational theory, Acker is
also widely credited with introducing the concept of the ideal worker into
organizational scholarship.14 Ironically, Acker did not directly use the term
ideal worker; rather, she defined an abstract, bodiless worker as:
The closest the disembodied worker doing the abstract job comes to a real
worker is the male worker whose life centers on his full-time, life-long job,
while his wife or another woman takes care of his personal needs and his
children. While the realities of life in industrial capitalism never allowed all
men to live out this ideal, it was the goal for labor unions and the image of
the worker in social and economic theory.15
Although Acker never explicitly defined the ideal worker in her founda-
tional article, Joan Williams (1989) named the ideal worker in her legal
scholarship, writing at approximately the same time period as Acker. In
her influential article “Deconstructing Gender,” Williams argued that
“problems such as the feminization of poverty stem in substantial part
from a wage-labor system premised on an ideal worker with no family
responsibilities.”16 She continued, noting that women are forced into a
family-worker dichotomy: “whereas women, in order to be ideal workers,
have to choose not to fulfill their ‘family responsibilities’, men do not,”17
In later scholarship, she succinctly defined the ideal worker as “someone
who works at least forty hours a week year round. This ideal-worker norm,
framed around the traditional life patterns of men, excludes most mothers
of childbearing age.”18
In this chapter, we draw on the definition of the ideal worker and
the theoretical model of how gender operates in organizations to exam-
ine the relationship between faculty work and work/life balance. We
argue that the changing nature of the professoriate requires a reexamina-
tion of the ideal worker definition and, therefore, a reconceptualization
of how gender operates in higher education. Although contemporary
norms and practices have led to some challenge to the ideal worker,
the construct retains its stronghold in higher education. Aligned with
the purpose of this volume, we take a critical approach to a longstand-
ing and widely used theory in gender and higher education to prob-
lematize and contextualize the ideal worker norm in the contemporary
challenges and norms in colleges and universities. In the following, we

discuss how various changes in the professoriate, including faculty work
expectations, the rising tide of neoliberalism, and changes in the faculty
workforce, point to shifts in the ideal worker norm. We also consider the
implications that changes in gender norms have for the ideal worker. We
conclude by discussing how typical work/family interventions may only
succeed in reifying the ideal worker, and instead offer some interventions
that might help to subvert the system to create an academy that provides
explicit attention to difference, rather than tries to erase it.
The Changing Nature of the Professoriate

and Ideal Worker Norms
The professoriate, and indeed higher education in general, has under-

gone significant changes that have altered the very nature of faculty work.
The changes are germane to larger societal trends, such as the number
of women entering the workforce and changing family structures. The
changes are also related to the relationship between higher education and
the public good within the context of neoliberal behaviors within the edu-
cational sector. In this section, we outline several of these larger trends and
how they impact the very assumptions of the ideal worker norm.
Structure of Faculty Work Faculty work is historically organized around

the three-legged stool of teaching, research, and service. Faculty are
required to teach a contracted number of courses per semester, engage
in advising and mentoring activities with students, participate in faculty
governance and service activities to support the operations of the college
or university, and, at many institutions, engage in research or scholarship.
This work takes place under certain social and cultural norms often rooted
in the notion of expertise and academic freedom granted via the struc-
ture of tenure. These norms all center around agency and autonomy, or
the idea of control over one’s work and expertise. Tenure grants faculty
the highest level of agency and autonomy, earning it after a probationary
period and extensive peer review. Faculty have the autonomy over knowl-
edge creation, the agency to determine their daily work lives, and respect
for expertise in the form of institutional decision-making or governance.19
These very ideas directly challenge some of the assumptions of the ideal
worker.
A major component of Acker20 and Williams’21 conceptualization of the

ideal worker is the notion of hierarchy and power. Williams argued for a
sociological view of power, focusing on the relationship between family
structure and power and identifying how power operates to privilege men
who are able to perform as an ideal worker while women are given a false
choice of being a worker or caring for their children.22 Williams noted,
“This gender system results in the impoverishment of women, since it
leads mothers systematically to ‘choose’ against performing as ideal work-
ers in order to ensure that their children receive high-quality care.”23
Acker took up a similar set of arguments but made a more direct connec-
tion with how power is embedded in organizational hierarchies: “The job
is the basic unit in a work organization’s hierarchy, a description of a set
of tasks, competencies, and responsibilities represented as a position on
an organizational chart.”24 For Acker, hierarchies are taken for granted
and imbued with gendered logic; those who can perform the abstract
and bodiless set of tasks and competencies can continue to move up in
the hierarchy, receiving positive evaluations. Importantly, Acker acknowl-
edged that addressing the ideal worker in organizations would lead to a
complete dismantling of organizations, noting that “hierarchy would be
abolished, and workers would run things themselves.”25
The structure of faculty work challenges part of the assumptions of
hierarchy and power. Certainly, hierarchy and power exist in higher educa-
tion in many forms congruent with the concepts of organizational design26
and individual power.27 Organizational notions of power are rooted in the
ideas of division of labor and coordination of activities horizontally and
vertically.28 Individual power, or personal power, is often considered cate-
gorically with expert, coercive, and legitimate power, among others.29 For
example, faculty are often considered to exercise expert power, given the
knowledge and expertise they bring to their work. Faculty expert power
is reinforced with tenure and a hierarchical ranking system of title and
position.
Higher education adheres to and challenges typical notions of orga-
nizations as academia is at once bureaucratic and collegial30; adminis-
trative hierarchies and structures of collegial faculty governance both
have the opportunity to acquire and use power rationally and politically.
In this regard, faculty exist in a system that defies traditional notions
of corporate organizational hierarchy with the ability to operate in a
power system more similar to that suggested by Michel Foucault where
power exists in a more net-like fashion with ready access for anyone
who chooses to exercise it.31 Foucault also suggested a form of surveil-

lance, a panopticon, operating within organizations that create more
self-regulating behaviors.32 Structurally, faculty have formal decision-
making power via faculty governance structures, access to expert power,
and considerable agency in crafting their job descriptions, tasks, and
competencies, thus creating a more flat structure with a less pronounced
hierarchy. This perspective harkens back to the notion of higher edu-
cation as a professional bureaucracy, in which professionals compose
the large operating core of an organization.33 Moreover, faculty have
the ability to work in many locations without direct surveillance, often
being granted even more autonomy and agency once tenured.
We are suggesting that the power structure and hierarchy that are
foundational to the notion of the ideal worker is more complicated
for faculty who also have the ability to access forms of power. Faculty,
at least full-time, tenure-line faculty, are not simply under immediate
threat of dismissal and other forms of hierarchical power found in other
more corporate-like organizations. And, faculty do often create the
very processes of evaluation in tenure and promotion which gives them
the agency to can “run things themselves.” The lack of an immediate
threat to job security and the agency to create the systems of evalua-
tion initially appear to stand in contrast to the ideal worker where strict
structural hierarchy and false notions of choice frame a discriminatory
environment for women. In fact, evidence of some of these efforts are
found in research on faculty activism;34 yet larger scale and widespread
change is difficult to achieve and historically underrepresented faculty,
women and people of color, continue to be under-served and under-
represented in specific fields (i.e., computer science) and in full profes-
sor roles. Inequity in gender, race/ethnicity, and sexual orientation
continues in faculty work, suggesting that while faculty can and do
change the practices, policies, and cultural norms in higher education
institutions, there is still a power system that operates with scrutiny,
similar to Foucault’s panopticon.35 Therefore, while power is structur-
ally and even culturally available to faculty in the collegium models
that have traditionally defined universities, power associated with those
gendered expectations continues to operate, reflecting the assumptions
of the ideal worker norm.
Higher Education, Neoliberalism and the Public Good A robust set of lit-
erature developed over the last decade has articulated an erosion of the
contract between higher education and the public.36 As Adrianna Kezar,
Anthony Chambers and John Burkhardt succinctly stated:
The social charter between higher education and the public includes such
commitments as developing research to improve society, training leaders for
public service, educating citizens to serve the democracy, increasing eco-
nomic development, and critiquing public policy. In return for these various
social commitments, society provides tangible resources, political support,
raw materials, and guiding influence.37
Some argue,38 this contract has been entirely violated as a result of a

larger trend toward neoliberalism in which organizations adopt market-
like behaviors and private self-interest is prioritized over the public good.
Sheila Slaughter and Gary Rhoades developed a comprehensive theory
to articulate the behaviors of higher education institutions in the context
of neoliberalism.39 Their model suggests higher education is functioning
within the context of a neoliberal state where the focus is “not on social
welfare for the citizenry as a whole but on enabling individuals as eco-
nomic actors,” further explaining that “neoliberal states move resources
away from social welfare functions toward production functions.”40 For
faculty, the rise of academic capitalism has resulted in a changing context
and increasing demands for specific types of productivity, namely peer-
reviewed publications and revenue-producing entrepreneurial endeavors
(i.e., research grants, patents and copyrights). Related is a differentia-
tion and unbundling of the faculty role with an increasing number of
contingent faculty who perform mainly teaching (and sometimes service,
in the case of full-time non tenure-track faculty) roles, separating the
activities of teaching and research. Recent statistics show that approxi-
mately 70 % of all faculty in nonprofit institutions of higher education
are contingent.41
The reality of neoliberalism in faculty work is that faculty are constantly
working more hours to produce work that is valued by the institution,
engaging in more service work to keep faculty governance healthy as many
contingent faculty are disenfranchised, and taking on more advising and
mentoring of students to support institutional enrollment growth for addi-

tional revenue. Surveys of faculty productivity have found that the average
number of hours a faculty member spends engaged in work has increased
over the past two decades. Whereas in 1984, faculty reported working, on
average, 40 hours per week, in 2004, they reported working, on average,
49 hours per week.42 Another study of University of California faculty
found that, on average, faculty worked 56 hours per week, with childless
faculty working slightly more hours than their parenting counterparts.43
The increased hours and associated activities are similar to the assumptions
of economic viability and choice embedded in Joan Williams’s argument
of the ideal worker:
But the underlying point is a deeper one: that society is structured so that
everyone, regardless of sex, is limited to two unacceptable choices-men’s
traditional life patterns or economic marginality. Under the current struc-
ture of wage labor, people are limited to being ideal workers, which leaves
them with inadequate time to devote to parenting, and being primary par-
ents condemned to relative poverty (if they are single parents) or economic
vulnerability (if they are currently married to an ideal worker).44
In other words, faculty members can either choose to work increasingly

longer hours, complete with more work tasks, or risk losing their jobs to
someone more willing to perform that work. This constraining tradeoff is
especially true for contingent faculty who operate on short-term contracts
with little job security and who are disproportionately women.
The rise of a neoliberal state and the subsequent behaviors of higher
education institutions complicate a critique of the application of the ideal
worker model to faculty work. In the previous section, we suggested that
the ideal worker model’s reliance on hierarchy, power, and control is
incongruent with the more flat organizational structure of higher educa-
tion, multiple ways that power functions, the expert power of faculty, and
the autonomous nature of faculty work. The rise of academic capitalism,
however, moves higher education institutions toward the characteristics of
profit-seeking organizations and thus leads to a shift toward supporting
the assumptions of the ideal worker. Faculty are under increasing demands
to control their output, such as producing peer reviewed articles and writ-
ing grants as opposed to more diffuse ideas of scholarship. Indeed, at
many institutions across the country, faculty are asked to complete annual
reports to prove their worth, quantifying the number of publications pro-
duced, students taught, dissertations advised, and grants received.45 Such

quantification suggests less a reliance on Henry Mintzberg’s professional
bureaucracy46 and more of a machine bureaucracy.47 Being a faculty mem-
ber under these expectations is being seen as a choice similar to Williams’s
conceptualization and, even worse, a privilege as there are more doctoral
recipients than faculty positions in the United States.48
Changing Demographics of Faculty Workforce As noted in the introduc-

tion, the composition of the faculty has changed dramatically over time.
Women began entering higher education in larger numbers in the 1960s,
resulting in more female doctoral recipients and thus more female fac-
ulty in the 1980s. Although conditions might be changing to encourage
the presence of more women faculty, inequities still persist in a number
of domains. For example, multiple studies suggest that women are more
likely to engage in teaching and service than men.49 Perhaps then, not
surprisingly, women are noted for having lower research productivity.50
The inequities spill over to personal lives as well; multiple studies suggest
that women faculty are less likely than men to have children.51 Laura Perna
found that 53 % of women assistant professors compared with 70 % of men
assistant professors had one child.52 Similarly, in their survey of University
of California faculty, Mary Ann Mason and Marc Goulden found that 50
% of men versus 30 % of women faculty had a child enter the household
within 12 years of their date of hire.53 These family formation patterns
suggest that norms of the ideal worker remain strong in that women who
are ideal workers have to consider how to navigate the increased demands
of bringing a child into the home while men may be more able to rely on
help from a wife to attend to the demands of the “second shift.”54 And,
indeed, statistics bear out this inequitable division of labor in the home.
Studies have found that while men and women faculty spend approxi-
mately equal amounts of time on paid work, women faculty spend 36
hours per week engaged in childcare compared with men who spend 20
hours per week performing the same tasks.55 Yet, as we discuss later, aca-
demic men actually perform more carework in the home than their coun-
terparts outside of the academy.
The introduction of women into the academy created an unprecedented

rise of new concerns related to parental leave, equal pay, and flexible work
schedules, to name a few. Although Stanford University introduced the
first tenure clock extension policy in 1971,56 most universities tended to

ignore the work/family needs of their faculty for another two decades.
The University of California system began offering family-friendly policies
in the late 1980s and has steadily revised those policies over the past sev-
eral decades to offer a comprehensive portfolio of benefits, including ten-
ure clock extensions, paid leave for childbearing mothers, and a reduction
in teaching duties for all parents. Other campuses have followed suit. A
survey of various campuses over a decade ago found that research univer-
sities were most likely to offer family-friendly policies, with an average of
2.99 policies per campus, compared with an average of 1.67 policies across
all institutional types.57 Family-friendly policies have become the norm
on most campuses, either due to campus-based faculty activism or peer
pressure in institutional benchmarking, thus providing some challenge to
the ideal worker norm in which the institution bears no responsibility for
helping the employee navigate the demands of work and family.
However, the increasing number of women is not the sole way that
the academy has diversified. The past several decades has seen increasing
numbers of faculty of color and those who identify as LGBTQ. According
to the National Center for Educational Statistics, faculty of color now rep-
resent 21.5 % of all full-time faculty, inching up from 19.6 % of all faculty
in 1998.58 Although no national datasets exist to track the numbers of
LGBTQ faculty, national studies suggest that LGBTQ individuals repre-
sent between 2.2 % and 4 % of all people nationwide.59 The percentage
of LGBTQ people on the faculty is likely higher.60 Just as women faculty
historically organized for greater rights in society and on campuses, so
have both groups organized for greater rights, as evidenced by the Black
Lives Matter movement,61 as well as the push for marriage equality in the
United States.62 Both groups continue to operate in an academy that was
not designed to consider their needs. As scholars have argued, the pres-
ence of faculty of color and those who identify as LGBTQ points to the
ways in which organizations are not just gendered, but also raced, and the
need for them to be queered.63
Each group’s presence calls attention to the pervasiveness of the ideal
worker, “the abstract, bodiless worker, who occupies the abstract, gender-
neutral job,”64 as a construct that masks difference across groups. In fact,
the ideal worker is often referred to as a white male in a heterosexual rela-
tionship, perpetuating heteronormativity and suggesting that white men
are qualified and successful workers. The mere physical presence of white
women and faculty of color and LGBTQ faculty challenges the idea that
workers and jobs are abstract and bodiless. Their bodies are marked and
call attention to the fact that individuals with unique identities fill posi-
tions, performing the real tasks of the worker, and cannot live up to the
unrealistic expectations of the ideal worker.
Finally, the increasingly open presence of transgender faculty and
students on campuses underscores the fluidity of gender and calls into
question the very notion of it (or any other category) as an organizing
construct. While some individuals transition from one gender to another,
others occupy a liminal space, identifying as genderqueer and not to
the categories of “man” or “woman.” Such rejection of gender binaries
calls upon the work of poststructuralists who reject gender categories
altogether.65
The changing composition of the faculty workforce has the potential
to challenge the ideal worker norm. Joan Acker built her theory on the
assumption that organizations themselves are inherently gendered, or “an
integral part of those processes, which cannot be properly understood
without an analysis of gender.”66 Thus, gender is not a separate analytic
unit as initially conceptualized in organizational studies, but is embed-
ded in the very fabric of an organization. Importantly, we do not go so
far as to suggest that the current evidence is strong enough to debunk
the ideal worker norm. The changing demographics of faculty, particu-
larly the increase in women alongside a shift in societal family expecta-
tions, has led to an increase in the number of family-friendly programs
and policies on college campuses, for example. There is also potential for
the continued increase in the number of women and the placement of
women in leadership roles to eventually challenge the inherent gender
inequity that underpins the ideal worker norm. To do so, those individu-
als and groups—women, people of color, and their allies—would need to
fundamentally challenge reward structures, evaluation practices, and cul-
tural norms that continue to award and promote those who are acting as
ideal workers, whether it be by virtue of congruence between their bodies
as white, male, and heterosexual or through tireless and always-available
work practices.
Changing Gender Roles Thus far, we have primarily focused on the first of
the two interrelated components of the ideal worker construct: that the
ideal worker is always working. However, the ideal worker also presup-
poses that the employee has a wife at home to take care of any children,
relying on a strict division of labor of men as breadwinners and women as
caregivers. The ideal worker norm is also bound up in Joan Acker’s gen-
dered organizations, which are defined by a separation between genders,
in this case, men exist in the organization and women exist apart from
the organization.67 Yet, just as women have come to occupy an increas-
ing percentage of the academic workforce, so too are men beginning to
participate in carework in the home, leading to a blurring of the divisions
between work and home. In part, one might argue that the shift in gender
roles stems from the increasing number of women in the workforce. Since
men can no longer rely on a stay-at-home wife to attend to family demands
and free them up to focus solely on work, gender norms have had to shift.
The majority of faculty members are married to someone who works out
of the home. In a study of over 9000 faculty, Londa Schiebinger, Andrea
Davies Henderson, and Shannon Gilmartin found that seven out of ten
were married to people who worked outside of the home; of those, half
were married to another academic.68 Given that employment patterns are
shifting, this necessitates a shift in gender roles as well.
Indeed, men are more likely to be engaged in care than ever before.
National studies suggest that the amount of time that men spend engaged
in care has quadrupled over the past three decades. In 1985, the average
man spent just 26 minutes a day providing care for his children; by 2012,
the average man spent 1 hour and 45 minutes per day engaging in the
same activities.69 However, data also suggest that faculty spend more time
involved in care than their counterparts outside the academy. Earlier, we
discussed the fact that men faculty spent only 20 hours per week caring
for their children compared with the 36 hours per week spent by women
faculty.70 However, the math suggests that men in the academy spend
nearly 60 % more time engaged in childcare than fathers employed outside
of higher education. Clearly, there is something about the academy that
creates conditions that allow men to be more engaged parents.
Studies have noted that men in the academy feel more able to be
involved in their children’s lives than men outside the academy. In her
study of 70 faculty fathers across four research universities, Margaret Sallee
found that fathers noted that the autonomy that comes with faculty work
allowed men the freedom to craft their own schedules.71 Many fathers
noted that they appreciated not having to ask permission from a supervi-
sor to leave work early to take children to after-school activities. They also
noted that their friends who worked in other professions spent far less time
with their own children. Thus, just as the autonomy that defines faculty
work challenges the presupposition that the ideal worker is always working
for somebody else, so too does the autonomy allow men to challenge the
separation of gender roles inherent in the ideal worker construct.
Although gender norms may be shifting, they are not yet equitable.
As our earlier discussion suggests, women still perform more work than
men in the home. Some of the faculty fathers interviewed by Margaret
Sallee reported experiencing penalties for taking parental leave or priori-
tizing their children over their careers.72 Some reported that colleagues
suggested that parental leave was designed to be used only by mothers.
Still others reported explicitly having their masculinity challenged by col-
leagues as a result of taking leave or otherwise prioritizing caregiving.73
Although there are ways in which contemporary faculty work and shifting
gender norms might challenge the ideal worker construct, it retains its
stronghold in the gendered organization.
As gender norms have shifted and men have taken on a greater propor-
tion of care in the home, there has also been a notable turn among younger
generations seeking greater work/life balance. In particular, members of
Generation X (those born between 1962 and 1980) and Millennials (those
born after 1981) are characterized as those who value work/life balance
more than earlier generations, such as the Baby Boomers.74 Indeed, the
Baby Boomers came of age at a time when jobs were scarce and many had
to be fiercely competitive to retain their jobs. This generation was noted
for working long hours, and thus embodying the ideal worker norm.
Generation X, however, is one of the smallest generations and did not face
the same sort of competition for jobs. Partially as a result of the overabun-
dance of jobs, Generation Xers rejected the always-working ethic of their
predecessors, seeking more freedom in their jobs and greater work/life
balance.75 Although there are significant differences between the genera-
tions, Millennials share Generation Xers’ emphasis on work/life balance.
Today, both groups comprise the majority of the faculty workforce and
continue to lead the drive toward implementing family-friendly policies
and demanding greater workplace flexibility. Studies of Generation X fac-
ulty underscore that this group values work/life balance.76 One study of
Generation X faculty fathers found that they were more likely to privilege
parenting over their careers than their Baby Boomer counterparts.77 In
fact, it was this group of faculty who were less likely to embrace traditional
gender norms, spending more time engaged in care with their children,
pointing to evidence that shifting gender norms and demands for greater
work/life balance go hand in hand. Together, such shifts underscore the
ways in which the ideal worker norm is being destabilized. Although the
expectations of faculty work continue to increase, leading many to feel
compelled to work longer hours, the current generations in the academy
have expressed a strong interest in finding ways to be engaged parents
while also being productive scholars. In some ways, this quest for balance
creates even greater burdens on contemporary faculty, whose predecessors
could often rely on traditional divisions of labor in which men worked and
women were responsible for childrearing. Many faculty today aim to be
engaged in both realms. Although their increasing work hours suggest a
continued adherence to the ideal worker norm, their increased engage-
ment in the home points to its destabilization.
Our analysis suggests that the ideal worker norm continues to apply
in higher education, while it is simultaneously being destabilized. While
power and hierarchy continue to exist and will likely always be a part of
organizational life, the very nature of faculty work is changing, leading to
a contradiction of reemphasizing certain aspects of the ideal worker and
challenging others. Although faculty work has been characterized by the
autonomy it brings, the neoliberal turn toward market-driven behaviors
has led to a turn away from traditional notions of faculty governance.
The current faculty member is both pushing away from the definition of
the ideal worker while simultaneously being pulled toward it. Moreover,
demographic changes have altered the face of the faculty in colleges and
universities, suggesting that the ideal worker needs to account for com-
plexity in gender fluidity, to provide more emphasis on sexuality, and to
simply offer a greater recognition of all bodies and the work that they
perform. We also see the ways in which shifting gender norms subvert the
ideal worker, and its dependence on the separation of gender roles. Given
the trends we highlighted in this chapter, we offer some suggestions that
institutions and those who populate them can use to begin to challenge
and break the ideal worker mold.
Identifying Solutions to Break the Ideal

Worker Mold
Higher education policy and practice has been somewhat attentive to the
changing demographics of the professoriate, often due to grassroots activ-
ism and major policy conversations. For example, the partnership between
The Sloan Foundation and the American Council on Education to address
faculty flexibility resulted in national attention to paternity/maternity pol-
icies, relationship between childbearing and child rearing and the tenure
cycle, and gender bias within academic departments. In their edited vol-
ume, Jaime Lester and Margaret Sallee documented many of the policies
and practices resulting from these grants and efforts.78 However, a deeper
analysis of these practices reveals that these solutions often reinforce the
ideal worker mold. For example, parental policies on many college cam-
puses have a few major components: (1) a tenure clock extension of one
year; (2) one semester of paid leave for nine-month tenure-line faculty, or
on some campuses, a reduction in teaching duties; and (3) shared leave if
both members of the couple are employed at the institution. Campuses
that require members of a couple to share leave perpetuate ideal worker
norm in that, frequently, couples will opt to have women use the leave
instead of men. In part, the choice is made out of recognition of the physi-
cal demands that pregnancy and childbirth place on a woman’s body as
well as the physical demands of breastfeeding. Inevitably, this leaves the
man without access to leave (or meaningful bonding time with his new
child) and instead relegates him to the role of the ideal worker. It is worth
pointing out the absurdity of this policy in that it places extra penalties on
couples who are both employed at the institution. Men who are married
to women who work off-campus or do not work at all are eligible for the
maximum leave and do not have to share it with anyone. Even though we
strongly support institutions that provide leave to faculty of any gender,
we are struck by the fact that men who embody the ideal worker norm
(with the stay-at-home wife) are eligible for more leave than their dual-
career counterparts.
Yet, multiple studies suggest that men are not availing themselves of
institutional policies as frequently as women are.79 In one study, 30 % of
woman assistant professors used a tenure clock extension while just 8 % of
men used the same policy.80 Such low numbers of participation by men are
problematic for two reasons. First, tenure clock extensions are supposed
to come without penalty; in other words, there is no reason not to take
advantage of such a resource. By not doing so, both men and women are
trying to live up to the standards of the ideal worker. Second, the statistics
point to discrepancies between men and women’s usage, underscoring
men’s fear at being perceived as anything less than committed to work.
Although the use of parental leave is fraught with problems, we are
certainly not advocating that institutions stop offering it. We simply aim to
point out that its use may lead to reaffirmation of the ideal worker norm.
But will all interventions necessarily lead to this same outcome? In what
follows, we offer a series of suggestions that might be used to challenge

the ideal worker norm and create more humane and sustainable working
environments on college and university campuses.
Redefine Faculty Work Expectations The ideal worker norm is based on a

normative notion of organizations that have a clear and distinct hierarchy
with accompanying power structures. As already noted, faculty work func-
tions under different paradigms with a history of governance in institutions
of higher education that has recently been eroded due to the changing
environment of education (including a decrease in state financial support
as well as more emphasis on accountability and accreditation, among other
shifts). Joan Acker suggested that in order to address the ideal worker, an
organization must abolish hierarchy to become “some communal or col-
lective form of organization where work and intimate relations are closely
related.”81 While Acker does not provide any concrete suggestions, we
offer that traditional faculty governance does help to deemphasize hierar-
chy in colleges and universities. The academic administrative class is argu-
ably needed, given the increased complexity of organizational dynamics
and external constituents in higher education; yet, this should not suggest
that faculty governance cease to exist. Faculty can continue to engage in
decision-making in all aspects of the organization and perhaps in more
significant ways than just curriculum and personnel decisions. Given the
changing nature of the faculty, the inclusion of diverse voices can help to
reshape the ways in which power is distributed or accessed across campus.
For example, a woman professor who is a parent may provide a perspective
on inclusion of lactation rooms in space planning.
Colleges and universities need to rethink the very structure of faculty

work. Scholars have outlined various models to address the rise of con-
tingent faculty to include those used by medical schools and for-profit
universities.82 While these models are lacking in research, their intent is to
address the hierarchy between research and teaching faculty, reduce the
inequities across these faculty roles, and identify faculty who are experts
in research distinct from those who are experts in practice. These models
may help reduce the extreme expectations on faculty by differentiating
across faculty roles while being attentive to the inequity that perpetuates
existing hierarchies.
Rethink Tenure The ideal worker norm is based on the supposition that
employees are always working. For many assistant professors, there is no
greater period of stress in life than the pre-tenure years, when many fac-
ulty work nonstop to meet often unarticulated or unclear standards of
productivity. Those who produce enough scholarship are awarded tenure
while those who do not either start over at a new institution, or leave aca-
demia altogether. Those who are awarded tenure have often internalized
the norms of constant work, and thus continue to work at a frenzied pace
throughout their careers, often aiming to hit additional markers of status,
including promotion to full professor and the receipt of an endowed chair.
One way to challenge the ideal worker is to rethink the timeframe

attached to promotion and tenure. Faculty may produce at different rates
at different times in their lives. This need for differentiation is especially
true for faculty who are contending with major life issues, such as parent-
ing young children or caring for elderly parents. Rather than attach a strict
five-year evaluation period to the tenure period, institutions might evalu-
ate assistant professors in much the same way that they evaluate associate
professors transitioning to full professors, absent of any pre-determined
timeframe. Just as associate professors can individually decide when they
want to transition to full professor, so too should assistant professors
decide when they want to transition to associate professor. Of course,
assistant professors should be evaluated on whether they are making ade-
quate contributions in research, teaching, and service, and mechanisms
should be in place for those who fail to perform. However, allowing fac-
ulty to decide when to go up for tenure and promotion gives individuals
agency to determine when and how much to work. It would also force
institutions to clearly articulate their productivity standards and ultimately
evaluate individuals on how much quality work they produce, not how
quickly it is produced.
Joan Acker described job evaluations as a mechanism to perpetuate
power within the ideal worker.83 Individuals who behave according to
the expectations of the ideal worker are rewarded and awarded, thus per-
petuating a narrow set of behaviors. With this in mind, faculty tenure
and post-tenure reviews need revision. We suggest that allowing faculty
within their individual institutions to reimagine, reframe, and recreate
work expectations that allow for flexibility and are aligned, perhaps, with
Ernest Boyer’s work on faculty scholarship, will help to reshape the defi-
nition of an ideal worker.84 For example, Boyer suggested that faculty be

evaluated more holistically and that scholarship be viewed as a variety of
activities, not just peer-reviewed research. By doing so, faculty annual eval-
uation, tenure, and promotion processes can be more inclusive of work in
communities, such as community-based teaching, research, and service.
Importantly, this work cannot be done without inclusion of academic dis-
ciplines, as faculty external to the institution but within the discipline are
formally consulted via tenure and promotion of external review letters.
The currently-valued products in tenure and promotion are often research
grants or awards and publications. Without disciplinary conversations, fac-
ulty evaluations will continue to focus on a narrow set of products and
faculty will shape their work to meet those expectations. Other higher
education institutions have evaluation mechanisms that also rely on a nar-
row set of faculty activities. Community colleges, for example, tend to
focus on student evaluations and service activities within the institution.
Recent studies find that student evaluations have a significant gender bias
which disadvantages women.85 Any conversation about faculty expecta-
tions must now include those parts of the entire national or international
disciplinary community as well as faculty unions and other influential
groups in the evaluation process.
Provide Gender-Specific Parental Leave As Joan Acker stated, gender is an

inherent process of organizations, and must be attended to in any analy-
sis.86 Attention to gender, however, does not simply mean acknowledging
the needs of women, but rather acknowledging the needs of all genders.
Given the different expectations that are attached to men’s and women’s
parenting roles, institutions might be encouraged to provide gender-spe-
cific parental leave to all parents and, in particular, provide leave that is spe-
cifically designed for men’s use. As we detailed earlier, many institutions
require women and men to share accommodation, if both are employed
at the institution. (Never mind that rarely does institutional parental leave
policy directly address the needs of transgender parents; often, policies
are defined as for “fathers” or “mothers.”) Just as Scandinavian countries
designate several months of parental leave as only for men’s use, we would
encourage universities to similarly provide leave that is only meant for use
by men to accompany leave that is intended solely for women. Providing
gender-specific leave would create space for all parents to be engaged in
parenting and further deconstruct the separation of genders so critical to
the ideal worker norm.
We recognize that there is a narrow line to walk in terms of provid-

ing gender-specific leave and avoiding reinforcing the gender binary, gen-
der norms, and traditional family structures. As we commented above,
transgender parents are often not addressed in family-friendly accommo-
dations. Similarly, policies that assume the presence of two parents are
problematic for single mothers and fathers; single fathers, in particular,
face a steep penalty when they are employed at campuses that only pro-
vide accommodations for new mothers. Similarly, same-sex couples may
find that policy accommodations do not address their familial situations.
Although organizations may view their workers as “abstract” and “bodi-
less,” these examples point out that workers are anything but disem-
bodied. Policy accommodations should pay attention to the needs of all
workers, regardless of gender; doing so will further help challenge concept
of the ideal worker.
Conclusion
In this chapter, we have presented a challenge to the notion of the ideal
worker initially defined by Joan Acker and Joan Williams a quarter of a
century ago.87 The challenge is also a complement to the robustness and
flexibility of the concept and, in particular, the comprehensive nature of
Acker’s disembodied worker model. Even though faculty work poses a
challenge to any concept created with an archetypical organization in
mind, we found that the ideal worker norms apply more often than not.
Faculty work in environments where expectations of being wholly dedi-
cated to one’s job applies; this has, in fact, been emphasized by rising
expectations connected to neoliberalism and academic capitalism. The
challenge to the ideal worker notion in the form of flatter organizational
structures with faculty governance has historically disputed the assump-
tions of the ideal worker rooted in traditional organizations. Arguably,
these contested assumptions have eroded alongside the decrease in fac-
ulty governance across U.S. colleges and universities. Complicating the
ideal worker over time are the changing faculty demographics, creating
opportunities to reveal just how contradictory faculty work is to contem-
porary family life, faculty with non-white and LGBTQ identities, and
new faculty contracts. Although we offered some solutions to how col-
leges and universities can address these contradictions, we acknowledge
that much work needs to be done that will require empowering faculty
to govern.
Notes
1. Acker and Houten, “Differential Recruitment and Control: The
Sex Structuring of Organizations,” 152.
2. Gross, “Plus ca Change…? The Sexual Structure of Occupations
over Time.”
3. National Center for Education Statistics, Full-Time Faculty in
Degree-Granting Postsecondary Institutions, by Race/Ethnicity, Sex,
and Academic Rank: Fall 2009, Fall 2011, and Fall 2013 [Table
315.20].
4. National Center for Education Statistics, 2004 National Study of
Postsecondary Faculty Report on Faculty and Instructional Staff.
5. Gross, “Plus Ca Change…? The Sexual Structure of Occupations
over Time,” 207.
6. See Kanter, Men and Women of the Corporation.
7. It could be argued that Acker introduced many of these concepts
in the 1974 article co-authored with Van Houten (see Acker and
Houten, “Differential Recruitment and Control: The Sex
Structuring of Organizations.”). She noted in subsequent writings
that the 1974 piece did not get much traction in the literature.
8. See Ferguson, The Feminist Case Against Bureaucracy; Kanter,
Men and Women of the Corporation; MacKinnon, Sexual
Harassment of Working Women: A Case of Sex Discrimination;
Martin, “Group Sex Composition in Work Organizations: A
Structural-Normative Model.”

Organizations.”
11. e.g., Shafritz, Ott, and Jang, Classics of Organization Theory.
12. Lester, Sallee, and Hart, “Beyond Gendered Universities?

Implications of Research on Gender in Organizations.”
13. Calás and Smircich, “Re-writing Gender into Organizational

Theorizing: Directions from Feminist Perspectives”; Ely and
Meyerson, “Theories of Gender in Organizations: A New Approach
to Organizational Analysis and Change”; Britton, “Gendered
Organizational Logic: Policy and Practice in Men’s and Women’s
Prisons”; Britton, “The Epistemology of the Gendered
Organization.”

Organizations.”
15. Ibid., 149.
16. Williams, “Deconstructing Gender,” 801.
17. Ibid., 831.
What to do About it, 2.
19. Schuster and Finkelstein, The American Faculty: The Restructuring
of Academic Work and Careers.

Organizations.”
21. Williams, “Deconstructing Gender.”
22. Ibid.
23. Ibid., 823.

25. Ibid., 155.
26. Brass and Burkhardt, “Potential Power and Power Use: An

Investigation of Structure and Behavior.”
27. Pfeffer, Managing with Power: Politics and Influence in
Organizations.
28. Bess and Dee, Understanding College and University Organization:
Dynamics of the System.
29. French and Raven, “The Bases of Social Power”; Yukl, Leadership
in Organizations.
30. Birnbaum, How Colleges Work.
31. Foucault, La volonté de savoir.
32. Ibid.
33. Mintzberg, The Structuring Of Organizations.
34. Case, Kanenberg, and Tittsworth, “Transgender Inclusion in

University Nondiscrimination Statements: Challenging Gender‐
Conforming Privilege through Student Activism”; Hart,
“Mobilization Among Women Academics: The Interplay Between
Feminism and Professionalization”; Kezar and Lester, Enhancing
Campus Capacity for Leadership: An Examination of Grassroots
Leaders in Higher Education; Lester and Sallee, Establishing the
Family-Friendly Campus: Models for Effective Practice.
35. Foucault, La volonté de savoir.
36. Kezar, Chamber, and Burkhardt, Higher Education for the Public
Good: Emerging Voices from a National Movement.
37. Ibid., xiii.
38. e.g., Kezar, “Obtaining Integrity? Reviewing and Examining the
Charter Between Higher Education and Society.”
39. Slaughter and Rhoades, Academic Capitalism and the New

Economy: Markets, State, and Higher Education.
40. Ibid., 20.
41. Kezar and Maxey, “The Changing Academic Workforce.”
of Academic Work and Careers.
43. Mason and Goulden, “Marriage and Baby Blues: Redefining

Gender Equity in the Academy.”
44. Williams, "Deconstructing Gender,” 832.
45. Flaherty, “Refusing to be Evaluated by a Formula.”
46. Mintzberg, The Structuring Of Organizations.
47. Bess and Dee, Understanding College and University Organization:
Dynamics of the System.
48. Schillebeeckx, Maricque, and Lewis, “The Missing Piece to

Changing the University Culture.”
49. Park, “Research, Teaching, and Service: Why Shouldn’t Women’s
Work Count?”; Tierney and Bensimon, Promotion and Tenure:
Community and Socialization in Academe.
50. Bellas and Toutkoushian, “Faculty Time Allocations and Research
Productivity: Gender, Race and Family Effects”; Hunter and
Leahey, “Parenting and Research Productivity: New Evidence and
Methods.”

Gender Equity in the Academy”; Perna, “The Relationship
between Family Responsibilities and Employment Status Among
College and University Faculty.”
52. Perna, “The Relationship between Family Responsibilities and

Employment Status Among College and University Faculty.”

54. Hochschild, The Second Shift: Working Parents and the Revolution
at Home.

56. Manchester, Leslie, and Kramer, “Stop the Clock Policies and

Career Success in Academia.”
57. Hollenshead, Sullivan, Smith, August, and Hamilton, “Work/

Family Policies in Higher Education: Survey Data and Case Studies
of Policy Implementation.”
58. National Center for Educational Statistics, Full-Time Faculty in
Degree-Granting Postsecondary Institutions, by Race/Ethnicity, Sex,
and Academic Rank: Fall 2009, Fall 2011, and Fall 2013 [Table
315.20].
59. Gates, “LGBT Demographics: Comparisons Among Population-
Based Surveys.”
60. Tilcsik, Anteby, and Knight, “Concealable Stigma and Occupational
Segregation: Toward a Theory of Gay and Lesbian Occupations.”
61. See Taylor, From #BlackLivesMatter to Black Liberation.
62. See Hagai and Crosby, “Between Relative Deprivation and

Entitlement: An Historical Analysis of the Battle for Same-Sex
Marriage in the United States.”

Organizations”; Bendl, Fleischmann, and Walenta, “Diversity
Management Discourse Meets Queer Theory.”

65. Butler, Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity;
Mouffe, “Feminism, Citizenship, and Radical Democratic Politics.”

67. Ibid.
68. Schiebinger, Henderson, and Gilmartin, Dual-Career Academic
Couples: What Universities Need to Know.
69. Sayer, Bianchi, and Robinson, “Are Parents Investing Less in

Children? Trends in Mothers’ and Fathers’ Time with Children”;
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, American Time Use Survey: 2012
results (USDL-13-1178).

71. Sallee, Faculty Fathers: Toward a New Ideal in the Research
University.
72. Ibid.
73. Ibid.
74. Lancaster and Stillman, When Generations Collide.
75. Ibid.
76. Helms, New Challenges, New Priorities: The Experience of
Generation X Faculty; Sallee, Faculty Fathers: Toward a New Ideal
in the Research University.
77. Sallee, Faculty Fathers: Toward a New Ideal in the Research
University.
78. Lester and Sallee, Establishing the Family-Friendly Campus: Models
for Effective Practice.
79. Manchester, Leslie, and Kramer, “Stop the Clock Policies and

Career Success in Academia”; Mason, Goulden, and Wolfinger,
“Babies Matter: Pushing the Equity Revolution Forward”;
Pribbenow, Sheridan, Winchell, Benting, Handelsman, and Carnes,
“The Tenure Process and Extending the Tenure Clock: The
Experience of Faculty at One University”; Quinn, “Tenure Clock
Extension Policies: Who Uses them and to what Effect?”
80. Mason, Goulden, and Wolfinger, “Babies Matter: Pushing the

Equity Revolution Forward.”

82. Kezar, New Faculty Workforce: Drivers, Models, and Outcomes.

Organizations.”
84. Boyer, Scholarship Reconsidered: Priorities of the Professoriate.
85. Joye and Wilson, “Professor Age and Gender Affect Student

Perceptions and Grades.”

Organizations.”
87. Ibid.; Williams, “Deconstructing Gender.”
CHAPTER 7
Part of the Discussion? Gendered Role

of Support Staff in Higher Education
Samantha Armstrong Ash
While the status of women working in the academy has improved, the
gender schemas at play have, seemingly, only moved women from a
“marble ceiling” to a glass one. Research continues to show that women
benefit less from their positive contributions within an organization than
men.1 Barriers remain that impact the experiences and engagement of
women within the academy. Nowhere is this more apparent than when
support staff roles in higher education are examined. Comprehensive
conversations about women in higher education, such as the ones in this
volume, need to intentionally include all women, including those occupy-
ing staff roles. The purpose of this chapter is to examine the gendered
role of support staff in positions where recognition for contributions and
advancement opportunities are few. As institutions continue to do more
with less, support staff are, increasingly, serving as advisors, institutional
navigators, and program planners. Their responsibilities and purview have
moved beyond the traditional idea of a “secretary,” while the gendered
hierarchy of institutions does not support or recognize them as valuable
contributors.
Support staff are often the clearest example of how sex differences impact
salary, agency, recognition, and promotion within higher education.2 At
S.A. Ash (*)

Eastern Washington University, Cheney, WA, USA

140 S.A. ASH
the same time, they are often excluded in conversations about gender in
the academy.3 Engagement of students, faculty, and administrators with
support staff suggest that universities are at their best when all who work
on campus are recognized, empowered and valued to carry out the edu-
cational mission of an institution.4 Including women who are the “paper
handlers, record keepers, and data manipulators—the clerical and service
personnel who make up an army of those skilled in one or another orga-
nizational technique, or in more specific techniques at the service of orga-
nizations,” in research and dialogue on the impact of gender in higher
education paints a clear and full picture of the state of all women in post-
secondary environments.5
Without support staff, most institutions would be at a loss. Support
staff control calendars, communication lines, data entry, budgets, and
often fulfill the vital role as “first responders” for students. Staff are
experiencing increased workloads to ensure that educational missions
are carried out and students are supported. Support staff have done so
with little to no financial incentive, training, or recognition from the
institutions they work for.6 Staff members provide key knowledge and
help for students. They are positioned to ensure an institution operates
efficiently as they employ technical, clerical, gate-keeping, and triaging
skills, all of which tend to be female-dominated tasks and roles within an
organization.7 Despite the key roles support staff play and how students
view them as contributing to the student experience, they are relatively
ignored in research and overlooked in organizational decision making
and planning.
According to data collected by the NCES in 2011, women make up
61.6% of the “non-professional” staff working in higher education and,
of that 61.6%, a majority are clustered in lower-level support staff roles.8
The knowledge that a majority of women are found at the bottom of the
hierarchy, in positions with little possibility for advancement or recogni-
tion, further highlights the importance of including support staff as part
of the conversation on the status of women in the academy.9 As the roles
and contributions of administrative support staff in higher education
continue to evolve, so should the research and conversations to include
and address the gendered experience of support staff in postsecondary
institutions.
With a large body of “non-professional” female staff working in higher
education, institutions working to meet the call of creating seamless learn-
ing environments need to consider how staff are actively empowered and
PART OF THE DISCUSSION? GENDERED ROLE OF SUPPORT STAFF IN HIGHER... 141
supported to engage within the organization. The gendered nature of

support staff roles calls upon institutions and departments seeking to
engage all employees in student learning and development to recognize
how gender impacts their experiences and contributions. The experiences
of support staff, how they perceive their work and their roles, provide a
lens to look at the agency of women to positively impact the postsecond-
ary environment.
Are Support Staff Considered Contributors?

Leaders and scholars have focused on the whole campus as a learning envi-
ronment, one where students are able to develop cognitively and affectively
inside and outside of the classroom. A key assumption of holistic learning
environments is that all members of the organization contribute to the
academic environment and engagement of students. Literature empha-
sizes the importance of the whole campus being a learning environment
in which everyone working, including support staff, has the opportunity
to contribute to the learning and development of students.10 Research
related to staff working outside of the classroom implies that support staff
can and do play critical roles in carrying out the educational mission of
post-secondary institutions.11
In 1996, the American College Personnel Association (ACPA) pub-
lished “The Student Learning Imperative: Implications for Student
Affairs” to stimulate discussion of how “student affairs professionals can
intentionally create conditions that enhance student learning and personal
development.”12 “The Student Learning Imperative,” advocates for and
stimulates discussion of the importance of the whole campus as a learning
environment. The document reinforces that, in order to foster student
learning and development, collaboration among all who work at the insti-
tution and a solid dedication of all to student learning and development
is required.
In “Student Personnel Problems Requiring a Campus-Wide Approach,”
Shaffer noted eight problems facing higher education and how they could
be addressed.13 Shaffer outlined that a “unified, cooperative approach
by all segments of the campus community” is imperative for student
and organizational success. The traditional organizational structure of
colleges and universities does not create a whole campus-learning envi-
ronment.14 Shaffer stated: “effective education on the campus depends
upon the degree to which the total environment or community provides
142 S.A. ASH
a consistent, forceful stimulus in the direction of intellectual growth.”15

Further, he elaborated:
A significant challenge to educational administrators particularly in the years

ahead is to exercise initiative and ingenuity in utilizing the total resources
of their institution for the achievement of its objectives. This will require
aggressive efforts to overcome the traditional tendency to divide the campus
community into discrete line agencies each independent, in its opinion, of
responsibility and authority for meeting problems classified as falling under
another office.16
Shaffer’s words challenge institutions of higher education to take notice

of how everyone contributes to the educational mission of higher educa-
tion.17 Regardless, support staff and the women who occupy the majority
of these roles remain relatively unrecognized and absent from conversa-
tions and research on who impacts student learning and development.
To serve as a summary and analysis of the challenges facing higher edu-
cation, the Association of American Colleges and Universities published a
National Panel Report, “Greater Expectations: A New Vision for Learning
as a Nation Goes to College.”18 The panel was comprised of education, pri-
vate sector, public policy, and community leaders who reviewed and ana-
lyzed conditions of higher education in the United States. The document
stresses that to rise to the challenges of the twenty-first century, everyone
within higher education must individually and collectively assume respon-
sibility for the entire curriculum. Pointedly, the AACU called for college
campuses to assess how everyone on the campus contributes to student
learning and development. The institutional response to the call for ensur-
ing that all within an institution contribute to student learning and devel-
opment was to focus on faculty and administrators rather than all. As a
result of only focusing on specific positions, institutions have reinforced
the gendered hierarchy within higher education.
In 2004, the National Association of Student Personnel Administrators
(NASPA) and America College Personnel Association (ACPA) collabo-
rated in producing a booklet, Learning Reconsidered, which lobbied for
the “integrated use of all of higher education’s resources in the education
and preparation of the whole student.”19 The monograph argued that the
increasingly complex and interconnected world demands well-rounded
higher education graduates. Further, to achieve the outcomes required
for graduates to succeed in a more global economy, the whole campus
environment must be viewed as the classroom where everyone and every-

thing contributes to helping students learn and develop cognitively and
affectively. Building on the work of the AACU, NASPA and ACPA suc-
cessfully made the case that well-rounded graduates emerge as a direct
result of holistic learning environments.
Directed at all professionals who work within higher education,
Learning Reconsidered encouraged readers to think of learning as a “com-
plex, holistic, multi-centric activity that occurs throughout and across the
college experience.”20 The document concluded by stating:
This document asserts that learning must be reconsidered—that new

research, changing times, and the needs of today’s emerging generations
of students require that our traditionally distinct categories of academic
learning and student development be fused in an integrated, comprehensive
vision of learning as a transformative process that is centered in and respon-
sive to the whole student. Every resource on every campus should be used
to achieve transformative liberal education for all students, and all colleges
and universities are accountable for establishing and assessing student out-
comes that reflect this integrated view of learning.21
Research placing value and importance on the whole campus as a learning

environment provides a foundation for looking at support staff as critical
contributors to student learning and development.22 If the success of post-
secondary institutions in creating whole campus learning environments
depends on how campus resources, including support staff, are fostered
and empowered to impact student learning and development, support
staff need to be seen and heard from. Could it be that the gendered
nature of support staff positions is influencing the view of support staff
as valuable partners in the creation and maintenance of seamless learning
environments?
On one hand, authors and researchers provide critical insight into the
importance of all who work in higher education viewing themselves as
educators; on the other hand, findings from the literature confirm that
support staff roles – positions predominately held by women – are rarely
considered in how institutions fulfill their mission.23 The lack of recogni
tion of support staff roles in the literature and research pertaining to
the creation and maintenance of whole campus learning environments
highlights that gender inequity is alive and well within the academy. The
invisibility of support staff and the connection to gender can be easily
144 S.A. ASH
seen through two theoretical perspectives: Rosabeth Kanter’s Structural

Theory of Power in Organizations and feminist organizational theory.24
Support Staff: Where Position and Gender Collide

Kanter in her research focused on hierarchy within organizations, where
positions are placed, and how work is shaped by the roles people play.
Work environment structures and perceived employee access to power
and opportunity are directly connected to attitudes and behaviors.25 If
an employee does not feel empowered, formally or informally, they are
less likely to engage in behaviors that benefit the organization. If, on the
other hand, employees feel that they are valued, and informal and formal
structures align to empower them, they work above and beyond the call
of duty.26 Furthermore, an employee’s attitude is directly connected to
how structural empowerment and psychological empowerment manifest
or exist within an organization.27
The unpredictable nature of support staff positions in higher educa-
tion and the reliance on tasks assigned by supervisors has, for all intents
and purposes, as Virginia Valian points out, remained unchanged since
Kanter’s foundational research that showed secretaries relied on “the
boss” to direct all activities.28 Knowing that feelings of empowerment
for support staff are derived, primarily, from informal sources, begs the
question of how far these roles have evolved within colleges and universi-
ties. Formally, job descriptions designate the power of roles and position
people within in an organizational hierarchy. Yet, job descriptions do not
fully capture the work that support staff do and, therefore, are not for-
mally structured to empower them to engage in organizational citizenship
behaviors. Even though job descriptions have been codified beyond the
whim of supervisors in colleges and universities, support staff, and the
women who hold support staff roles, clearly indicate that they are not,
generally speaking, empowered formally to contribute to student learning
and development.29
Work and work product, at different levels of an organization, are
shaped by the role individuals occupy in the organization as well as gen-
der.30 Organizational citizenship behaviors in hierarchical organizations,
like postsecondary institutions, are connected to power and opportunity.31
The location of women in support staff roles in higher education puts
them at a disadvantage because their positions lack formal power and
opportunity. A woman’s ability to excel within an organization is con-
nected to the distribution of opportunity and power within the position

she holds.32 If institutions of higher education truly seek to meet the call
for creating holistic learning environments for students, it is important to
dig deeper in understanding how women in staff positions are empow-
ered, or not, to help create such environments.
Kanter, in her analysis of opportunities available to women and men
within an organization, discussed how “like promotes like” and that, as a
result, certain roles within an organization can be dominated by one gen-
der.33 Feminist scholars have worked diligently to examine and highlight
women and gender issues through organizational analysis and research.34
One of the ways feminist scholars have drawn attention to the disadvan-
tages women face in organizations is by highlighting positions or roles,
dominated by women, in which experience, power, and influence impact
the opportunities available.35 Sue Ellen Kjeldal, Jennifer Rindfleish and
Allison Sheridan suggested that experience, power, and influence are more
accessible to men than women within an organization based on their posi-
tion and the roles they assume.36 There is limited access to these factors
for women in the academic setting, specifically in support staff positions.
Costello noted that:
Organizational hierarchies are typically constructed on gendered processes

and the underlying assumption of the disembodied worker. The disembod-
ied worker represents a male whose life centers on a full-time job while
someone else, usually a female, takes care of his personal needs. The con-
cept of the disembodied worker shows a distinct division of labor. When an
organizational hierarchy reflects very few women in top-level positions and
an abundance of low-wage earning women at the bottom, one can see a
gendered organization in practice.37
Access and agency for women in support staff roles speaks to the ability
of support staff to be considered as valuable to the creation and mainte-
nance of holistic learning environments. While women at all levels of the
organizational hierarchy experience the impact of gendered organizations,
women in positions located at the bottom of organizational charts expe-
rience the full impact of the intersection between hierarchy and gender.
Both features have a tendency to make support staff invisible in the con-
versations pertaining to learning and development.38
Workers are empowered when they perceive that their work settings and
power structures are organized in ways that provide growth opportunities
146 S.A. ASH
and the ability to excel. When the structure of an organization does not
foster an environment that engages and empowers all individuals, it has
the potential to curtail productivity and the capacity of the entire organi-
zation.39 Given the charge to create learning environments that involve
inside the classroom learning and outside experiences, support staff need
to be formally and informally empowered to support students.
The concept of power and how it impacts the work environment for
women needs to be addressed to increase overall effectiveness and meet
the call for whole campus learning environments within higher educa-
tion. Power in organizations emerges in part from individuals’ capacity
to assemble and organize resources to carry out work and their ability to
identify structural supports.40 Formal power is connected to one’s per-
formance, organizational citizenship behaviors, and how an employee
contributes to solving organizational challenges.41 Informal power stems
from an employee’s political and social connections within the hierarchy
of a given organization.42 Connections or relationships with institutional
stakeholders (i.e. colleagues, superiors, students, and alumni) in higher
education can and do contribute to the informal power base of support
staff and whether or not they feel empowered.
The structure of power and opportunity is derived from three sources:
access to support, information, and resources.43 Support refers to feed-
back and guidance received from colleagues, supervisors, students, alumni
and subordinates. Information refers to the knowledge and expertise one
requires to function effectively in one’s position.44 Resources are just that,
any material item, time, or backing necessary to accomplish organizational
goals. As a result of having access and supportive formal and informal
power structures, individuals who perceive themselves as having power
and access end up fostering higher group morale and cooperation, del-
egate more to subordinates, provide opportunities to those around them,
and engage in organizational citizenship behaviors versus serving as pro-
ductivity road blocks.45
Structures focused on providing opportunity drive an individual’s pros-
pects of upward mobility within a given organization and can lead to a
sense of autonomy, increased satisfaction, decreased stress, lower burnout,
and higher organizational commitment.46 Those who perceive themselves
as having access to opportunity invest in their organization and not only
grow as individual employees, but grow the capacity and effectiveness of
the organization. Conversely, individuals who perceive themselves to be
in low opportunity positions exhibit low self-esteem, disengagement from
work, and may be prone to engaging in behaviors that limit organizational

capacity. Kanter maintained that individuals with access to power and
opportunity structures have the ability to accomplish the tasks required to
achieve organizational goals and are highly motivated to encourage and
empower others.47
Teresa Sarmiento, Heather Spence Laschinger, and Carroll Iwasiw
adapted Kanter’s initial model of structural theory of power in organiza-
tions.48 The tenets of the updated model are depicted below (Fig. 7.1):
Sarmiento and her colleagues made it clear that organizations require
a blend of structural and psychological empowerment and positive work
behaviors and attitudes in order to push employees to peak performance.49
Kanter postulated that organizational empowerment is critical for orga-
nizational effectiveness and employee excellence.50 Theoretically speak-
ing, staff respond to work environments in which they feel empowered
and excel as a result of it, resulting in increased efficiency and organiza-
tional capacity. Empowerment is possible when employees have access to
information, support, resources, and the chance to discover and develop.
Kanter outlined four components of empowerment: 51
1. Ability of an employee to expand beyond their position within an

organization
2. Access to information that enables one to excel in their role
3. Comprehensive knowledge of job expectations and backing in car-
rying out core tasks associated with one’s position
4. Access to resources required to fulfill job responsibilities
Fig. 7.1 Tenets of work empowerment (Adapted from Sarmiento, Spence

Laschinger, and Iwasiw, “Nurse Educators’ Workplace Empowerment, Burnout,
and Job Satisfaction: Testing Kanter’s Theory,” p. 136)
148 S.A. ASH
With the majority of positions at the bottom of postsecondary institutions

being occupied by women, questions arise as to how colleges and universi-
ties address matters of structural and psychological empowerment while,
at the same time, addressing the gender binary that continues to exist that
perpetuates work that is associated with women as lower status.
Kanter found that gender did not provide a full picture of what impacts
individuals within an organization and focused on how women’s positions
within them contribute to how they function.52 While Kanter did not focus
on gender as a primary issue and felt that the structure of an organization
and roles that individuals assume, based on that structure, are at the crux
of how well an organization functions, she could not negate that women
were occupying the lowest rungs of an organization.53 Accordingly, femi-
nist organizational perspectives are needed to fully understand the roles
of support staff and how power structures and gender impact their daily
work and contributions. Both Costello and Payne emphasized that how
society views men and women and the roles that are appropriate for them
or how they should engage is reflected in the workplace.54 Organizations,
including institutions of higher learning, regularly devalue positions and
work connected to women’s roles, especially if the work is clerical. At the
same time, organizations place value on what is perceived as men’s work
or characteristics associated with men.55 When Kanter’s work is consid-
ered in conjunction with feminist perspectives of organizations, a clearer
picture emerges of how support staff and women are empowered and
perceived as valued contributors within higher education.56
A Feminist Perspective of Support Staff

Acker noted that “gender was, in the not too distant past, almost com-
pletely integrated with class in many organizations.”57 Men served in man-
agerial roles at the top of organizations while “white-collar” positions at
the bottom were held, overwhelmingly, by women.58 Gender and class
were inextricably linked in the workplace and supervision, salary, and job
responsibilities were driven by “gendered attitudes and assumptions.”59
Again, not much has changed with respect to support staff roles in the
academy. The very nature of “support staff” connotes a helping mindset
and research shows that women are most often connected to helping roles
and helping professions.60 Regardless of the fact that helping is only one
function of support staff positions within higher education, hierarchy rein-
forces the gendering of these positions by virtue of their existence at the
bottom tier.61 From a structural standpoint, support staff are restricted in

their roles and their ability to impact the educational mission of a given
institution. Campuses claim to be gender neutral in their hierarchy, but
they are still gendered in terms of representation and the perceived contri-
butions of women in support staff roles.
The challenge, with women predominately occupying support staff roles,
is for institutions to make the invisible visible and, in doing so, empower
all employees to contribute to holistic learning environments. In research
completed in 2013 that looked at support staff working in four institu-
tional types (a research institution, a master’s level institution, a baccalaure-
ate institution, and community college), support staff linked their work to
serving in “mom roles,” addressing the emotional needs of students and
provided thoughts on mobility for women in support staff positions.62
In all narratives collected for the 2013 study, support staff highlighted
that serving in helping roles are tied to the idea of “women’s work.”63 This
is not surprising given that “women’s work” has, historically, been viewed
as an extension of mother/wife roles and characterized in the literature
using the following terms:
expressive, nurturing, interactive, supportive, labor intensive, inclusive,

general, other oriented, communal, repetitive, applied, people, social local,
private sphere, invisible, fixed cost, job, semiprofessional, deciduous, low
occupational mobility, intrinsic rewards.64
Given the descriptive terms associated with support staff, feminist perspec-
tives on organizations help to understand their roles and are designed,
specifically, to look at the role gender plays in helping or hindering orga-
nizational functions. In particular, organizations tend to “reinforce the
values system of the dominant gender, meaning organizational cultures
shaped predominantly by men generally emphasize hierarchy, indepen-
dence, and top-down communication.”65
Gender identity and gender norms impact the daily work of support staff
and are linked to how they strive to meet the emotional needs of students
and create supportive learning environments.66 In an organization where
position often determines value, support staff are of a lower class and iden-
tify with traditional female gender roles. Support staff interviewed in the
2013 research built on the connections made to motherhood and “wom-
en’s work” by noting how women are directed and lean toward roles that
foster nurturing and empathy. The women in the study were clear that,
150 S.A. ASH
through their work, they provide emotional support for students, faculty
and staff and, as a result, the support staff role is gendered.67 Research
participants shared their view that being female increases approachability
for students, especially when they are dealing with a difficult situation.68
Support staff established that, often, when students are in a crisis, being
female can be an asset. One participant attributed this to “the woman’s
desire to, kind of, take care of things and to make sure things are going
smoothly.”69 Another participant noted that when students come to her in
crisis it is the mom in her that responds to address emotional needs: “I feel
that, that is where the mom part of me…the female instincts of me come
out to be able to give them that compassion.”70
Utilizing feminist organizational theory and feminist standpoint to
examine the narratives of support staff in higher education provides con-
text and a needed lens to bring their voices from the margins and into the
conversation of who contributes to student learning and development.
Feminist standpoint theory, as outlined by Harding, focuses on the idea
that knowledge is socially situated and women located in marginalized
positions, like support staff roles, have a greater ability to highlight what
needs to change within an organization.71 To understand how bureaucratic
structures within higher education are holding gender and gender differ-
ences in place and identify how to overcome such structures to engage all
in carrying out the mission of higher education, the narratives and lived
experiences of support staff need to be acknowledged.72
Feminist organizational theory helps examine organizations and high-
lights how they reproduce or foster gender stereotypes.73 Organizational
structure is not gender neutral. Women have struggled to overcome ste-
reotypes, and how they have been socialized differently from men in the
workplace.74 As a result, women are concerned with how they engage and
tend to be placed or place themselves in nurturing roles within organiza-
tions.75 Assumptions about gender underlie the structure of organizations
and provide a foundation for theorizing with respect to them. The very
nature of “support staff” connotes a helping mindset and research shows
that women are most often connected to helping roles and professions.76
While helping is only one function of support staff positions, hierarchy
reinforces their gendering by the nature of these staff occupying the bot-
tom tier of an organization. From a structural standpoint, support staff are
restricted in their roles and their ability to impact the educational mission
of their institution.
Feminist organizational theory embeds gender and power within insti-

tutions to help understand power relationships and how they impact
people’s work.77 The feminist perspective, as noted previously, is valuable
in analyzing data and emphasizing how gender and power relationships
emerge throughout organizations. The experiences of women are con-
nected to social practices within a given institution and the power relation-
ships that support those practices.78 If support staff are not empowered,
because of where they are situated in the hierarchy and/or because of the
gendered nature of their position, institutions will not meet the call for
whole campus learning environments. Ultimately, feminist organizational
theory is key to recognizing how individuals and institutions can address
structures, power, and barriers that impact female support staff. Through
careful examination and consideration of the roles and position of support
staff in higher education, institutions have the opportunity to move the
dial forward with respect to student learning and development and, at the
same time, improve the status of women within the institution. As Valian
shared:
Unless jobs are gender balanced, it will be difficult for either sex to assess
what a job is worth. Female-dominated jobs tend to be paid less than male-
dominated jobs, even when the jobs are comparable in terms of the skills
and training they demand. A woman in a female- dominated job will think
of her job as worth less than it is because most of the people who hold jobs
like hers are women. Similarly, a man in a male-dominated job will think of
his job as worth than it is because most jobholder are male.79
To tackle the status of women within the walls of higher education and
improve the cognitive and affective development of students, those that
occupy female-dominated roles need to know that their job is critical to
carrying out the mission. Support staff should not be devalued because of
where they are situated or the fact that the roles they hold are inherently
gendered.
Implications for Practice
Support staff and the women who serve as support staff are a rich resource
in higher education. Colleges and universities have the ability to acknowl-
edge and empower staff to help institutions fulfill their educational mis-
sion and address the status of women. Using a review of the literature and
152 S.A. ASH
a theoretical analysis, this chapter helps draw attention to the importance

of support staff being part of the dialogue of women in higher education.
In organizations where value is connected to hierarchy, support staff are
often overlooked and draw upon traditional gender roles in their work.80
Colleges, clearly, cannot work without support staff yet, support staff
are typically not fully engaged or recognized for what they can and do
contribute.81
Kanter’s Theory of Structural Empowerment, feminist standpoint, and
feminist organizational theory are all key to understanding what really
takes place inside an institution for women in support staff roles and each
sheds light on how institutions can shift to improve the environment
for women and, in doing so, improve organizational function.82 If sup-
port staff and women do not feel that they are supported or empowered,
then the ability for an organization to achieve peak performance is put at
risk.83 Faculty and administrators need to ensure that support staff, and
the women who hold these roles, are respected, recognized, and receive
open and full communication at all levels of the organization if they are
to, as called upon, meet the demand for everyone and everything within
an organization to contribute to student learning and development. Work
on behalf of faculty and administrators to engage, utilize, and empower
support staff will not only aid in high organizational effectiveness, it will
shift the status of women within the organization.84
Kanter’s model, as envisioned by Sarmiento, Spence Laschinger, and
Iwasiw, focuses on the importance of combining structural empowerment
(opportunity, support, information, resources, etc.) with psychological
empowerment (meaning, confidence, autonomy) to achieve positive work
behaviors and attitudes.85 Strategies for improving the work environment
for support staff, women, and ensuring that postsecondary organizations
are operating at peak performance fall into three areas: (a) helping sup-
port staff and women maximize what they contribute to the institutional
mission; (b) engaging supervisors in developing strategies and structures
that increase the organizational citizenship behaviors of support staff and
women; and (c) encouraging more research to inform practices, strategies
or restructuring that ensure(s) that everyone on a campus has access
to agency.
Recommendations for Support Staff Harding emphasized the importance

of the feminist standpoint and if support staff recognize that they can and
do play critical roles with respect to student learning and development,
they are more apt to further their own abilities and engage in organiza-
tional citizenship behaviors.86 It is important for support staff to manage
their destiny and develop their professional identity in ways that contrib-
ute to the campus and their own careers. Suggestions follow for support
staff to consider, based on existing research and practice87:
1. Develop communities of practice. Communities of practice

emerge among individuals in a similar field or role to develop their
profession based on a common interest or knowledge base.88
Communities of practice can play a critical role for individuals and
groups to engage in dialogue and promote new understanding, new
knowledge, new practices, and a stronger sense of identity. These
communities would move beyond traditional women’s networks to
specifically focus on support staff and bring them together to share
how they help carry out institutional missions, identify their contri-
butions, increase knowledge through experience sharing, give voice
to the gendered nature of their role and how it impacts agency, and
identify pathways for increased agency. Communities of practice fos-
ter psychological empowerment.
2. Engage in training opportunities. Training opportunities, while
not widely publicized on many campuses to support staff, tend to be
available. Professional development opportuntiies, if engaged in by
support staff, can help further their ability to intentionally and posi-
tively impact the organization. It is recommended that support staff
seek out training opportunities and work with their supervisors to
engage in training that will contribute to effectiveness and increase
agency. Increased training for support staff not only speaks to the
tenets of structural and psychological empowerment, it directly
ties to an institution investing in ensuring that everyone within
a college environment is contributing to student learning and
development.89
3. Regularly perform a work role audit. Role audits document indi-
vidual contributions and increase awareness for individuals and
organizations of what people are doing, daily, to make a difference
in an organization. From role audits, structural empowerment can
emerge. While, anecdotally, the work support staff engage in goes
beyond their job descriptions and contributes to their professional
identity, they have a responsibility to share with an organization
154 S.A. ASH
what is truly occurring through their work. These types of audits

also have the potential to continually highlight the experience of
women within an organization and influence change.
Recommendations for Support Staff Supervisors It is clear from the lit-

erature that an organization needs a blend of structural and psychologi-
cal empowerment, and positive work behaviors and attitudes to ensure
that employees and women are at peak performance.90 Organizational
empowerment is critical for organizational effectiveness, employee excel-
lence, and addressing issues of gender. Recommendations for supervisors
include:
1. Provide role clarity. Support staff supervisors should perform job

audits of support staff positions. A job audit can lead to role clarity
and ensure that each position is connected to the educational mis-
sion of the institution and that men and women in like positions are
treated equally. Connection to the institutional mission in a job
description is a formal empowerment symbol and has the potential
to address gaps between men and women in similar roles.
2. Recognize contributions of all team members. Administrators
and support staff supervisors should identify meaningful ways to
engage with and acknowledge support staff and their work. While
communication of importance occurs at some levels, staff may not
feel confident that people understand their contributions or value
the work they do. When we acknowledge that the support staff roles
are positions primarily held by women, we can see how women
might feel overlooked. Therefore, it is critical that institutions and
units recognize the contributions of all team members and develop
formalized strategies for recognition.
3. Utilize support staff members who currently exhibit organiza-
tional citizenship behaviors to train others. Identifying support
staff to conduct training sessions is one way to not only honor the
work of support staff and what they are contributing, but also cre-
ates an environment that raises the bar for others and ensures that
individuals are speaking a common language. Having support staff
train others in all-staff meetings is one way supervisors could
approach this recommendation. Regardless of the approach, it is
recommended that supervisors reach out to and use competent and
productive support staff in a formal training capacity.
Putting these recommendations into practice challenges preconceived

notions of support staff and the roles they play and helps address structures
that are impacting a large workforce of women working within academe.
When structures that impact women are addressed and acknowledged and
the responsibility to carry out the mission is shared among all who work
at an institution, cultures of student success are possible and institutions
establish a dynamic, engaged support team that leads to mission fulfill-
ment. As a result, holistic student learning environments are created and
maintained.
Recommendations for Future Research

Even though a single chapter cannot completely showcase the experiences
of support staff and the gendered nature of the role, it can start a conversa-
tion and spur additional research. In particular, more research is required
on support staff, their contributions to student learning and development,
the gendered nature of their role, and to move beyond the gender binary
of those who identify as cisgender women or cisgender men. To this end,
research is needed that:
1. Examines how support staff are perceived as contributors and

contribute to student learning and development. This chapter
makes it clear that support staff play an important role in student
learning and development and enacting the institutional mission.
That said, little research has been done that looks at how faculty,
administrators, students, and external stakeholders view support
staff as contributors to student learning and development. Research
that identifies how support staff are viewed and are contributing to
holistic learning environments can help further structural and psy-
chological empowerment.
2. Includes support staff in research efforts that move beyond the
gender binary in the academy. This chapter and prior research
establishes that support staff occupy roles that are gendered in
nature.91 That said, it does not move beyond the gender binary or
consider intersectionality, the impact that race, ethnicity and sexual
orientation have in addition to gender. Research that considers the
gendered nature of support staff roles, and moves beyond them, will
not only complement current studies, it will provide a broader nar-
rative of the experiences of women within these roles and identify
156 S.A. ASH
how tenets of empowerment theory can be utilized to increase sup-

port staff work behaviors and positive attitudes.
In an age of diminished resources, it is critical to explore how the abilities

of all staff, regardless of job classification, contribute to student learning
and development. Further research into how all employees on a college
campus contribute to student success has the potential to ensure that insti-
tutions are, indeed, focusing on the creation and maintenance of holis-
tic learning environments where everyone is in the business of student
learning.
Parting Thoughts
The purpose of this chapter is to move beyond drawing attention to the
gendered nature of support staff in postsecondary institutions and con-
sider the importance of including then in the conversations and research
pertaining to women and the work of higher education. Support staff
tend to be dedicated and driven individuals who are capable contribu-
tors to learning environments and the success of students.92 Support
staff members engage in meaningful relationships with students and help
train student workers, and are the face of college campuses.93 They con-
nect daily with students, assuage parent angst, and provide critical sup-
port for their supervisors.94 While research shows that support staff are
personally committed to their jobs and feel empowered through their
work with students, their contributions to students success are often
overlooked and unrecognized by the institution.95 Through examina-
tion of who occupies administrative support staff roles, the contribu-
tions support staff make, and the empowerment structures in place for
them, it is clear that postsecondary institutions continue to be gendered
organizations.
Notes
2. Ibid.
Climate and Policies on Female Support Staff”; Iverson, “Crossing
Boundaries: Understanding Women’s Advancement from Clerical
to Professional Positions.”
4. Armstrong Ash, “Student Affairs Support Staff: Empowered and

Invisible.”
5. Kanter, Men and Women of the Corporation 2nd ed., 4.
Invisible.”
Climate and Policies on Female Support Staff.”
8. National Center for Education Statistics [NCES].
9. Allan, “Women’s Status in Higher Education: Equity Matters”;
Iverson, “Crossing Boundaries: Understanding Women’s
Advancement from Clerical to Professional Positions.”
10. Keeling, ed. Learning Reconsidered: A Campus-Wide Focus on the
Student Experience; Keeling, ed. Learning Reconsidered 2:
Implementing a Campus-Wide Focus on the Student Experience;
Kuh, Shedd, and Whitt. “Student Affairs and Liberal Education:
Unrecognized and Unappreciated Common Law Partners”; Kuh,
“The Other Curriculum”; Kuh, Kinzie, Schuh, Whitt and Associates.
Student Success in College: Creating Conditions that Matter.
Invisible”; Kuh and Schuh, The Role and Contribution of Student
Affairs in Involving Colleges; Kuh, Douglas, Lund, and Ramin-
Gyurnek, “Student Learning Outside of the Classroom:
Transcending Artificial Boundaries.”
12. American College Personnel Association. “The Student-Learning
Imperative: Implications for Student Affairs [PDF document].”
13. Shaffer, “Student Personnel Problems Requiring a Campus Wide
Approach,” 463.
14. Ibid., 464.
15. Ibid., 463.
16. Ibid., 463.
17. Ibid.
18. Association of American Colleges & Universities, “Greater

Expectations.”
Student Experience, 1.
20. Ibid., 5.
21. Ibid., 30.
Invisible.”
158 S.A. ASH

Student Experience; Costello, “Women in the Academy: The
Impact of Culture, Climate and Policies on Female Support Staff”;
24. Kanter, Men and Women of the Corporation; Acker, “Inequality
Regimes: Gender, Class and Race in Organizations”; Acker, Class
Questions: Feminist Answers; Harding, “Introduction: Standpoint
Theory as a Site of Political, Philosophic, & Scientific Debate.”
25. Kanter, Men and Women of the Corporation; Kanter, Men and
Women of the Corporation 2nd ed.; Pease, “Professor Mom:
Women’s Work in a Man’s World.”
26. Sarmiento, Spence Laschinger, and Iwasiw, “Nurse Educators’

Workplace Empowerment, Burnout, and Job Satisfaction: Testing
Kanter’s Theory.”
Women of the Corporation 2nd ed.; Sarmiento, Spence Laschinger,
and Iwasiw, “Nurse Educators’ Workplace Empowerment,
Burnout, and Job Satisfaction: Testing Kanter’s Theory.”
Invisible.”
Women of the Corporation 2nd ed.
31. Ibid.; Sarmiento, Spence Laschinger, and Iwasiw, “Nurse

Educators’ Workplace Empowerment, Burnout, and Job
Satisfaction: Testing Kanter’s Theory.”
Women of the Corporation 2nd ed.; Pease, “Professor Mom:
Women’s Work in a Man’s World.”
34. Acker, “Hierarchies, Jobs, and Bodies: A Theory of Gendered
Organizations”; Acker, “Gendering Organizational Theory”;
Acker, “Inequality Regimes: Gender, Class and Race in
Organizations”; Acker, Class Questions: Feminist Answers; Costello,
“Women in the Academy: The Impact of Culture, Climate and
Policies on Female Support Staff”; Hult, “Feminist Organization
Theories and Government Organizations: The Promise of Diverse
Structural Forms”; Iverson, “Crossing Boundaries: Understanding

Women’s Advancement from Clerical to Professional Positions.”
35. Dienesch and Liden, “Leader–Member Exchange Model of

Leadership: A Critique and Further Development”; Hult,
“Feminist Organization Theories and Government Organizations:
The Promise of Diverse Structural Forms.”
36. Kjeldal, Rindfleish, and Sheridan, “Deal-Making and Rule

Breaking: Behind the Façade of Equity in Academia.”

Climate and Policies on Female Support Staff,” 101.
Invisible”; Costello, “Women in the Academy: The Impact of
Culture, Climate and Policies on Female Support Staff.”
39. Kanter, “Power Failure in Management Circuits.”
41. Brown and Kanter, “Empowerment: Key to Effectiveness.”
42. Brown and Kanter, “Empowerment: Key to Effectiveness.”
44. Chandler, “The Relationship of Nursing Work Environment to
Empowerment and Powerlessness.”
46. Ibid.
47. Kanter, Men and Women of the Corporation 2nd ed.; Brown and
Kanter, “Empowerment: Key to Effectiveness.”

49. Ibid.
50. Kanter, Men and Women of the Corporation; Kanter, “Power Failure
in Management Circuits”; Kanter, Men and Women of the
Corporation 2nd ed.
51. Kanter, Men and Women of the Corporation.
52. Ibid.
53. Ibid.
160 S.A. ASH

Climate and Policies on Female Support Staff”; Payne, Gendered
Jobs and Gathered Workers: Barriers to Gender Equality in Gendered
Organizations.
55. Ibid.
Corporation 2nd ed.
57. Acker, “Inequality Regimes: Gender, Class and Race in

58. Ibid., 444.
59. Ibid., 444.
60. Pease, “Professor Mom: Women’s Work in a Man’s World.”
61. Acker, “Inequality Regimes: Gender, Class and Race in

Organizations”; Armstrong Ash, “Student Affairs Support Staff:
Empowered and Invisible”; Costello, “Women in the Academy:
The Impact of Culture, Climate and Policies on Female Support
Staff”; Iverson, “Crossing Boundaries: Understanding Women’s
Invisible”; Pease, “Professor Mom: Women’s Work in a Man’s
World.” This study was reviewed by Washington State University
(Project Number 3611242).
Invisible”; Valian, Why So Slow? The Advancement of Women.
64. Pease, “Professor Mom: Women’s Work in a Man’s World,” 134.
65.
Advancement from Clerical to Professional Positions,” 146.
Invisible.”
68. Ibid.
69. Ibid., 96.
70. Ibid., 94.
71. Harding, “Introduction: Standpoint Theory as a Site of Political,
Philosophic, & Scientific Debate.”
72. Armstrong Ash, “Student Affairs Support Staff: Empowered

and Invisible”; Costello, “Women in the Academy: The Impact
of Culture, Climate and Policies on Female Support Staff”;

Advancement from Clerical to Professional Positions”; Ward
and Wolf-Wendel, Academic Motherhood: How Faculty Manage
Work and Family.
73. Acker, “Hierarchies, Jobs, and Bodies: A Theory of Gendered
Organizations”; Acker, “Gendering Organizational Theory.”
74. Betz and O’Connell, “Work Orientations of Males and Females:
Exploring the Gender Socialization Approach.”
76. Pease, “Professor Mom: Women’s Work in a Man’s World.”
78. Weedon, Feminist Practice and Poststructuralist Theory 2nd ed.
79. Valian, Why So Slow? The Advancement of Women, 162.
Culture, Climate and Policies on Female Support Staff”; Iverson,
from Clerical to Professional Positions.”
82. Kanter, Men and Women of the Corporation; Harding, “Introduction:
Standpoint Theory as a Site of Political, Philosophic, & Scientific
Debate”; Acker, “Hierarchies, Jobs, and Bodies: A Theory of
Gendered Organizations”; Acker, “Gendering Organizational
Theory.”
Corporation, 2nd ed.
86. Harding, “Introduction: Standpoint Theory as a Site of Political,
Philosophic, & Scientific Debate.”
Invisible.”
162 S.A. ASH
88. Ibid.; Lave and Wenger, Situated Learning. Legitimate Peripheral

Participation.

Women of the Corporation, 2nd ed.; Sarmiento, Spence Laschinger,
Invisible.”
94. Ibid.
95. Ibid.; Costello, “Women in the Academy: The Impact of Culture,
Boundaries: Understanding Women’s Advancement from Clerical
to Professional Positions.”
CHAPTER 8
Feminist Faculty: Striving to Be Heard
Jeni Hart
Janice Newson’s once said: “Yet the fact remains that feminist struggle has
helped to change significantly the landscape of higher education systems
in ways that cannot be easily reversed.”1 She reminds us that the hard work
of feminist academics has made a difference for woman-identified individ-
uals in U.S. colleges and universities. (N.B., I will use women throughout
the rest of the chapter for simplicity.) However, as introduced at the onset
of this volume and throughout other chapters, despite improvements,
women continue to face discrimination, harassment, inequities, and
inequalities on their campuses and throughout their professions.2 There
are explicit and implicit messages of hierarchies and masculine privilege,
particularly white masculine privilege, in general and throughout aca-
deme.3 “In a sense, the Academy’s [sic.] existence in and of itself creates
an ironic de facto need for feminist activism.”4 Gender binaries, gender
roles, and gender inequality remain part of the fabric of higher education,
necessitating feminist intervention.
This chapter presents the story of the academic lives of 12 feminist
women who are activists and want to challenge patriarchal behaviors and
structures in order to transform the academy and the world around them.
J. Hart (*)
University of Missouri, College of Education, Columbia, MO, USA

164 J. HART
I explore their experiences as early career faculty and how their femi-
nist positionalities are constrained and liberated as scholars and activists.
Specifically, I seek to answer the following question: How do early career
women feminist academics describe their activist academic selves in the
context of their lives as feminist faculty?
Background Literature
When new faculty members step onto campus, it marks the beginning of
their socialization into the organization and continues the socialization
into their professions as academics.5 It is a critical moment of becoming, a
process that continues throughout faculty members’ careers. For women
and feminists, it is also throughout the process of becoming, which also
includes the time in graduate school, that their gender, feminist, and activ-
ist identities evolve.6 Integrating these identities is rarely seamless; faculty
often experience frustration, isolation, backlash, and stress negotiating
how to embody these multiple identities (among others they possess).7
Certainly, not all women faculty identify as feminists; however, for
those who do, they must engage in what Amanda Gouws refers to as
their double identity. 8 Through this engagement, these faculty mem-
bers discover that their identities shape one another. Thus, the faculty
members’ feminist activism is influenced by their academic selves and vice
versa, establishing their approaches to intellectual activism, or “the myriad
ways that people place power of their ideas in service to social justice.”9
Intellectual activism is possible in the classroom, in service to the academic
institution and profession, and in scholarship. Patricia Hill Collins recog-
nized the dilemma intellectual activists face as outsiders within. However,
she argued that if academe is power, then the possibility of “speaking truth
to power”10 is greater when positioned from inside.11 Yet, as intellectual
activists, it is also necessary to “speak truth to the people,”12 whether it
is the public outside the academy and/or colleagues, staff, and students.
For early career faculty members working without tenure, both forms of
activism are not without risk—the former because it challenges authority
and power structures, and the latter because it is an investment of self in
ways that “don’t count” toward career progression.13 Early career feminist
academics are seemingly caught in a double-bind regarding their work as
activists; how they navigate their complex, and at times, competing identi-
ties is at the heart of this study.
FEMINIST FACULTY: STRIVING TO BE HEARD 165
Framework
I framed this study using concepts that emerged from earlier research I
conducted on feminist academic activists: professionalized activists and
activist professionals.14 These concepts emerged to describe the women
involved in feminist faculty organizations on two campuses in the early
2000s. The women in the organizations were working to improve the
climate for women on their respective campuses.
Although the focus of this study is not on collectives, but rather on 12
individual women, I believe the concepts are still relevant. They capture
how identities as feminist activists and academic feminists intersect in dif-
ferent ways. Understanding this is important because these academics, and
I would argue all academics, are influenced by the structures of their pro-
fessions and institutions in which they work, and those structures shape
individual and collective agency. Agency is at the heart of action,15 and by
extension, activism, and ultimately the possibilities of structural transfor-
mations to create a socially just climate for all genders.16
Professionalized activists foreground their identities as academics, or pro-
fessionals.17 Their activist identities are salient; they are engaged in efforts to
improve their institutions. However, their work as academics (e.g., teach-
ing, research, service) informs the sorts of strategies that are used to advance
their feminist agendas. For example, professionalized activists might present
workshops to raise awareness of gender inequities on campus (i.e., teach-
ing). They might conduct salary equity and gender climate studies (i.e.,
research); or they might serve on university committees, raising concerns
about women’s issues on campus (i.e., service). They also rely heavily on
prestige networks to actualize their change efforts. In these ways, they
might schedule monthly meetings with institutional leaders who hold for-
mal power, such as presidents and provosts, to identify problems related to
faculty gender equity and propose solutions.18 Professionalized activists are
prone to negotiate institutional changes much like tempered radicals and
grassroots leaders, using quiet resistance within an institutional bureaucracy
to seek incremental success toward larger goals.19
In comparison, activist professionals foreground their activist identities;
they are activists who are also professionals.20 The differences between
them and professionalized activists are subtle, but meaningful. While they
may also engage in professionalized activist strategies, they prioritize oth-
ers to elicit change. For example, they might petition university boards of
trustees or present at state legislative hearings. They might use the power
166 J. HART
of the press to write op-ed articles in local or national media or interview

with reporters to expose gender inequities at the university. In addition,
activist professionals are more likely than professionalized activists to par-
ticipate in activist work outside the university. Their activist work, like
many feminist activists, was centered on gender equality; however, their
activist agendas often focused on how women’s oppression is connected
to oppressions based upon race, ethnicity, social class, sexuality, and other
minoritized identities.21
Methods
To best understand the experiences of the participants, I conducted nar-
rative research.22 The narrative data at the center of the study include
interviews conducted as conversations with 12 women feminist aca-
demics.23 To identify participants, I posted an email about the study to
the Women’s and Gender Studies Listserve at my institution, which is
a research university that also prepares future faculty. In the message, I
asked colleagues if they could identify recent graduates who identified as
feminists and were beginning a new tenure-track position. I also asked
my university colleagues to re-post the message in other forums, such as
disciplinary societies or share with colleagues they knew at other institu-
tions who might be able to identify potential participants. In addition,
I sent a personal request to several colleagues outside of my institution
who I know and who are feminists, asking for their assistance in identify-
ing potential participants. Through this process, I gathered 14 names and
email addresses and sent personal emails to each potential participant. All
14 agreed to participate and one of the participants shared information
about the study with a colleague at her institution who contacted me and
agreed to participate as well. A total of 15 participants agreed to partici-
pate in the study.
Prior to collecting interview data, each participant completed an online
demographic survey, on which they also selected a pseudonym that I used
to label electronic files and identify narratives throughout the findings to
further protect participant confidentiality. All of the demographic ques-
tions were open-response, except for two. Participants were asked to mark
yes or no, regarding whether they had children. When asked to identify
their gender, I listed multiple options, and participants could indicate
identification with more than one: woman, man, transgender, gender
queer, other (with open text box).
Three of the participants self-identified as men; for the purpose of this

chapter, I have excluded their stories and focused on the data from the
12 participants who identified as women. All participants self-identified as
white (save one who did not respond). Their ages ranged between 28 and
36 at the start of the study, with an average age of 32. Participants rep-
resented a variety of disciplines and fields, including Education, Gender
Studies, English, Library, Theatre, Sociology, Art History, Rhetoric and
Composition. Table 8.1 provides additional demographic details of the
participants. If a cell on the table is left blank, that is because the partici-
pant left the item blank.
Data Collection In addition to collecting demographic data, I inter-

viewed each participant during the fall semesters of their first and second
years as academics on the tenure-track. I conducted the interviews via
telephone and Skype. In one case, because the participant was in the same
field as me, I conducted the interviews in person at an academic confer-
ence. Unfortunately, because of the physical distance between me and the
majority of the participants and the cost involved in traveling to conduct
interviews in person, I had to rely on alternative interviewing formats.
Each interview lasted between 60 and 90 minutes and with permission
of the participants was recorded and transcribed verbatim. I used a semi-
structured protocol that encouraged participants to share stories about
their experiences and allowed our conversations to emerge organically
along with their stories.
During each interview and throughout the process, I attended to tem-

porality, sociality, and place.24 To do so, I recognized that individual sto-
ries are socially constructed and constantly revised over time;25 as such, I
purposely asked participants to not only reflect on their past, but on the
current lived realities as academics at a particular point in their careers
(i.e., temporality). Further, the interviews considered sociality by discuss-
ing the role relationships play in their experiences. Participants shared sto-
ries about their families, friends, and colleagues that complicated their
larger narratives. I was also cognizant of the relationship I was building
with participants. My positionality and the relationships I built must be
acknowledged and cannot be disentangled from their, or my own, sto-
ries. I explore my own positionality below. Finally, I attended to place.
Departmental, institutional, and community locations shape storied expe-
riences and I asked participants to think about how these places are inter-
Table 8.1 Participant profiles
Pseudonym Institution type (http:// Religion/spiritual Social class Ethnicity Sexual Workload Relationship # of
168
carnegieclassifications.iu.edu) identification orientation expectation (%) status children

teaching/
research/
J. HART
service/other
Madeline Public, Master’s (large) Jewish Working/ Jewish Queer 60/20/20 Committed 2
Middle
Charlie Public, Master’s (medium) None Working Heterosexual 80/15/5 Committed 0
Barbara Private, Research (high) Latter Day Saints Middle Heterosexual 0/10/10/80 Single 0
Susan Public, Research (very high) Agnostic Mixed— n/a Queer 40/50/10 Committed 0
Working to
Owning
Hannah Public, Research (very high) Jewish Upper Jewish/Irish Queer/ 30/50/20 Married 0
Middle Bisexual/
Pan-sexual
Amelia Private, Baccalaureate (arts & Liberal, Non- Upper American/ Heterosexual 50/20/30 Single 0
sciences) practicing Christian Middle Norwegian
ancestry
Ellen Public, Doctoral Christian Upper Irish-American Straight 35/35/30 Married 0
Universalist Middle
Nayeli Public, Master’s (large) Protestant Middle Latina Heterosexual 50/30/20 Married 0
Rosemary Public, Master’s (medium) Working Queer/Bisexual 60/20/20 Committed 0
Sasha Public, Research (very high) Pagan Middle American/ Bisexual 60/40 Committed 0
German ancestry
Buffy Private, Baccalaureate (arts & Raised United Middle WASP Queer, but in 75/25/25 (I Committed 0
sciences) Methodist; now Middle hetero- know this does
Without Religion/ normative not add up,
Agnostic/Spiritually relationship but this is how
Faithful it seems)
Molly Public, Baccalaureate/ Latter Day Saints Middle Eastern Bisexual 90/0/10 Married 2
Associate’s European Jew,
English
connected to who they are and who they are becoming as feminists and
academics.
Data Analysis Data analysis was an ongoing and iterative process. During
and after each interview, I completed an analytic memo reflecting on
insights and ideas that emerged.26 In addition, I used the memos to iden-
tify similarities and differences in the experiences of participants. I then
uploaded the analytic memos and transcripts into NVivo to assist with data
management as I conducted further analysis. More formally, I relied on
a sociological approach to analysis. In this way, I sought to explore how
individuals’ stories are both constrained by and emancipated from mono-
lithic discourses about what it means to be an academic and a feminist.27
To do so, I read and reread my analytic memos and each participants’ nar-
rative, looking for patterns and themes and the relationships between the
themes.28 I did not rely on preconceived categories as I approached the
data; rather, the process was emergent. By rereading the storied narratives,
I was able to reduce the data into specific themes that I present below. In
this way, I become the narrator and interpreter of their collective stories.
Positionality My roles as facilitator of the conversations with participants

and narrator of the findings warrants exploration of my own positional-
ity. Doing so sets the stage for me to be reflexive, which is important
in enhancing the credibility of this study.29 My interest in this project
stemmed from my own experiences as a feminist academic. I looked back
on my evolution as a woman scholar and feminist and noticed how I have
grown, which made me wonder if others had similar or different experi-
ences as they progressed through their early academic careers.
My work as a feminist activist started a few years prior to my doctoral

work in the field of higher education. I volunteered as a legal and medical
advocate for survivors of sexual violence. I also answered calls on a sexual
violence hotline in the town where I lived. However, it was not until I
began my doctoral program that gender and feminism became an intellec-
tual project—and I also understood then that activism was also an intellec-
tual project. Since that time, I have continued to read, discuss, and think
deeply about feminism and my own identity as a privileged, cis-gender,
highly educated white woman who grew up practicing Catholicism. While
I continue to identify as working class, I now have financial resources that
would lead others to label me middle class. I am also privileged by my
170 J. HART
identities as heterosexual and able-bodied. These interlocking identities

remind me that whiteness and other related privileges must be re-centered
as I continue to work as a feminist academic.
My first academic position was for one year at a regional state univer-
sity in southern Missouri; since then, I have worked at one institution,
the University of Missouri. I am a tenured associate professor in a well-
resourced department (Educational Leadership and Policy Analysis) and
university. I have received grants; presented regularly at national and inter-
national conferences; and published journal articles, book chapters, and
other scholarly contributions. Until I became department chair four years
ago, I taught two classes each semester; the remaining time was allocated
to research and service. I am a Women’s and Gender Studies (WGST)
Department affiliate and annually teach one cross-listed graduate course
for my department and WGST. I engage in feminist pedagogical practices
in my classes and continue to focus research on gender and feminism, with
a particular emphasis on faculty work.
Throughout my early career, I followed “the rules.” I pursued grants
that were related to, but somewhat outside my interests, because I should
have federal funding. I wrote the requisite number of journal articles,
according to the policy in my department, and sought the most presti-
gious journals first when submitting my work. I graduated several master’s
and doctoral students and was considered a good teacher by students and
my peers. When it came to preparing my portfolio for promotion and
tenure, I was strategic in submitting names for external review letters,
talking with feminist scholars in my field about who might be supportive
of feminist work.
In 2009, my tenure process was advancing without concern until the
university committee voted on my case. I was initially denied tenure and
appealed to the committee. I walked in prepared to justify feminist work,
the journals in which I published, and qualitative research. Those were
topics of conversation; however, the majority of the questions about my
case were directed at my advocates, who were men, and were present to
support my appeal. The committee overturned its initial decision, but the
experience still haunts me. I discuss with students the lessons I learned
from that experience, as well as with early career faculty in my department.
I feel tremendous guilt that I have not engaged in activist work in
my local community. Although I donate to feminist organizations and
causes, my activism is exclusive to my teaching, research, and service, and I
often question whether my feminism and activism is performative.30 Also,
I wonder how I am complicit in reproducing the masculine organization

that is academe by doing so.31
For example, as an instructor, I am explicit about my feminist iden-
tity in syllabi. I use feminist pedagogy in my approach to teaching.32 I
challenge students to think critically about issues of privilege, power,
and difference and patriarchy through selected readings and classroom
discussions. My scholarship unearths gender inequities and calls for col-
lege and university actors to transform the academy through socially just
policies and practices. Regarding service, over the years, I conducted and
consulted on campus climate studies, studies about gender violence, and
faculty satisfaction studies. I also served on committees that recommend
policies and practices to improve campus climate and gender equity, pre-
sented workshops for graduate students about diversity and social justice
in the academy, and am an associate editor for a journal about diversity
and on an editorial board for a journal about women in higher education.
However, in all of these activities, I ask myself whether I am just using
the master’s tools to dismantle the master’s house.33 Overall, my posi-
tionality as a woman, a feminist, an academic, and an activist is messy and
continues to evolve. My positionality also provides me with a distinct lens
that influences every aspect of this study. By outlining it here, I am able
to begin the process of reflexivity, which is tied to the trustworthiness of
this project.
Trustworthiness I engaged in a number of techniques to enhance the

trustworthiness of this project.34 As mentioned above, first, I articulated
my positionality and practiced reflexivity throughout the research process.
Second, I member checked all transcripts with participants to ensure the
accuracy of the written conversation. Third, I detailed my methodological
process, and with the assistance of NVivo, organized the data so that I had
an audit trail that would allow other researchers to conduct a similar study.
Finally, I used thick, rich description so that readers can more easily decide
whether the study findings are transferrable to other settings.
Findings
For the participants in this study, their feminist identity was inextricably
linked to activism—this is to say, without activism, they would not con-
sider themselves feminists. However, most expressed disappointment and
172 J. HART
guilt because they were not as involved in activism inside, and especially
outside the academy, as they would have liked. When they described the
activism they did enact, it took a variety of shapes and forms. Yet, their
academic lives both constrained and liberated their feminist activist identi-
ties. Below, I explore the themes of constraint and liberation that emerged
from participants’ narratives to describe the context and processes of the
intersections of their feminist (and therefore, activist) selves and their
identities as early career faculty.
Constraints The theme, constraints, represents obstacles that participants

faced that complicated their identities as women, academics, and femi-
nist activists. They shared stories of undue burdens of service that they
perceived as expectations because of their identities; their labor was often
exploited. Participants described working in a culture where they were
pushed to outperform; they felt pressure to excel above and beyond what
was expected of other colleagues. In addition, because of their identities,
they also censored themselves and were hesitant to speak up and speak
out. While they made the conscious decision to step back, the choice felt
forced due to the risks involved in acting otherwise. Together, these con-
straints influenced how they evolved as early career women feminist faculty
and, next, I delve deeper into analyzing the constraints.
Exploitation of labor A number of times, participants shared that their

labor was taken for granted by colleagues to the point that their labor was
exploited. This notion of exploitation was particularly salient for those
who worked in unionized settings, where the language of labor was preva-
lent. However, exploitation of labor was a reality for nearly all participants
no matter what their institutional setting. Most often, exploited labor
took the form of service to the department, college, or university. In these
ways, participants felt singled out because of their identities and felt com-
pelled to agree to service work that they did not believe others would be
asked to perform.
Both Nayeli and Amelia were flattered when their respective colleges’
presidents asked them to serve on campus committees in their first years
as faculty members. They appreciated that the president knew them and
their work, as the service was closely aligned with their scholarly expertise.
Although it may not have been the intent of the presidents to put them
in difficult positions, saying “no” did not feel like an option, especially as
untenured early career faculty members. Nayeli explained,
Well for that search, the president personally called me. I am fortunate to be
at an institution where the president is in [my field], and so he understood
my expertise and my contribution. So, to that, I definitely could not say no,
or wouldn’t say no because there was an understanding that I could make a
very good contribution to that search.
Other participants, like Ellen and Charlie, described expending emotional

labor when they declined invitations to participate on campus committees
or informally advise a student. At one point, Ellen questioned whether it
would have been less stressful to say yes than to work through the guilt
and anxiety she felt about her decision to say no to a service role. For
instance, she worried whether she let her colleague down or whether her
decision would be held against her during her annual review.
Some participants felt “protected” from service as early career faculty
during their first year in tenure track positions; however, by the time they
began their second year, the demands on their time by colleagues and
students meant that they had little time to dedicate to other activities,
including activism. Susan was surprised when she learned of a committee
she had been assigned to chair in her second year. She expressed,
The email goes out to the campus community listing me as the chair of
the Women’s Resources Initiative. I am a non-tenured second year assistant
professor, a woman, and a woman provost puts me in this kind of a service
position pre-tenure.
Susan’s appointment came as a surprise, and like with Nayeli and Amelia,
she felt she had little recourse but to assume the role and take on these
responsibilities. In addition, she strongly believed in the purpose of the
committee, as it aligned with her feminist identity, making it even more
difficult to decline. Although the committee work could be activist in
nature, Susan did not come to it on her own terms.
Participants who were single and/or childless described being vulner-
able to exploitation by others. They perceived that colleagues who were
partnered and had children were often exempt from requests to take on
additional academic responsibilities. At the same time, they were con-
scious of the “second shift” so many of their women colleagues who were
mothers experienced. Sasha explained her conflicted feelings,
174 J. HART
And so I really started being a lot more vocal about the fact that…as single,
childless women, we are almost abused in a lot of cases because there’s an
assumption that, “Oh, she doesn’t have kids so she can stay and do the
late night things or she can do the dinners with candidates.” And men and
women equally do that to us. And being women, we willingly do most of
it, because we want to work toward the greater good. And you know, we
have empathy for our colleagues that have children and don’t get to spend
enough time with them, so I think it’s a double edged sword.
Moreover, several of the participants lived and worked in rural commu-

nities. They explained feeling isolated because of their statuses as single
and/or childless. Not only did they feel that more was demanded of them
because they “must have the time,” but they also felt like they did not fit in
well and were uncomfortable with a culture of heteronormative privilege.
Rosemary reflected on statements made by deans at her institution,
So the deans have even directly said things, and this is against affirmative
action standards and I know this, but, “We like to hire people that we think
want to eventually have families and then we can retain them.” And I, as a
person who is completely uninterested in a family and children, it’s really
disturbing to hear that; it’s like a weird entrapment narrative.
Embedded in this statement is an expectation that early career academics

who do not have children should be working toward long-term relation-
ships with partners, one which includes children. This family imperative is
yet another expectation and a potentially literal exploitation of labor that
complicated the beginning of participants’ academic careers.
Pushed to outperform Another aspect of labor exploitation was the feel-

ing that participants had to work twice as hard as their more senior and
men colleagues, and had to demonstrate exceptionality in their perfor-
mance. Rosemary described how she received a very clear message from
her dean upon being hired about the amount of work she would have to
do as a new professor. She recalled,
Last year when we came in he said, “The academic market is bad, which
means we got better faculty than we ever could have gotten in the past, and
we know that you all have promising research agendas, so that’s why we’re
increasing our research mandates.” So our response was kind of like, “Okay,
that’s great, we got hired at a 4/4 teaching load, so will there be, if you’re
interested in moving more toward a research mandate, is there going to
be course release time?” And he said, “No, but that’s why we picked you,
because you’re the top candidate.”
Rosemary was grateful that she found a position; however, she realized
that the dean used the poor faculty market as an opportunity to expect
more from her and her peers.
Molly did not feel that the expectations for tenure were necessarily
higher at her institution, but she did feel extra scrutiny from others to
prove she was worthy of her position. Explaining her experience, she said,
But I do feel like the bar for me is higher. Not necessarily the tenure bar,
but the bar for me being deemed a productive individual has been very high
as a result of my gender, and I have to continually kind of prove myself. I’m
like a short woman who looks quite young, so when I meet people for the
first time, they’re always surprised that I have a PhD and super surprised that
that PhD is from Cambridge, and all these things. So I always have to prove
myself, but that’s not going to go away.
Participants mentioned generation, age, race, and gender as factors that

contributed to a sense that they needed to work harder and demonstrate
excellence in all aspects of their lives. For example, Nayeli listed all the
aspects in which she felt it necessary to excel, including teaching, research,
advising, service, and being a partner, a daughter, and a friend. All of these
expectations led her to feel as if she could not succeed at any of those
responsibilities. Many other participants expressed similar frustration and
inadequacy.
Self-censorship At some point in their narratives, all participants told

me about moments at work when they censored themselves in some
way. They acknowledged that the decision was often conscious and self-
protective. Buffy shared, “My feminist performance is more subdued than
it was before I was faculty. When I was in grad school, I was in a clear
feminist [performance troupe], and my feminist identity was completely
out there.” She explained that she did not want to “start any fires” as a
new untenured faculty member, which tempered her feminist expression.
176 J. HART
Participants were hyper-aware of their behaviors, noting that if they

were too disagreeable or outspoken their tenure could be compromised.
Participants knew there were personal costs to tempering their behaviors,
especially if it was in response to a feminist issue. Yet, they felt the risks
were often too great. Reflecting this sentiment, Amelia stated, “I also
think as an untenured faculty member sometimes to offer too much at a
faculty meeting could put you into tricky waters once it comes to tenure
and promotion.”
Ellen described her colleagues as very kind and supportive. However,
the culture of nice she experienced was also a signal that certain conversa-
tions were unwelcome or inappropriate. She relayed,
I’ve also found, because of the collegiality that I’ve talked so much about,
because people here are so generous and kind and polite and generally help-
ful that when something does happen, say in a meeting that makes me think,
whoa, there’s something weird and gendered going on here. It’s actually
harder to have that moment where you sort of break into the conversation
because people are so polite, I guess, calling them out on sexist behavior.
Ellen struggled with how to confront sexist behaviors; however, Hannah

initially felt empowered to do so. Yet, the results of her efforts left her
questioning whether and how she should continue to be an activist.
Hannah posted a message on social media responding to a situation on
campus that she believed perpetuated a culture of violence against women;
her message was immediately removed from the site. She sought advice
from a senior feminist colleague on campus about how to address what
had happened. Her colleague told her, “You are not going to get any-
where with this. Don’t bother.”
Colleagues and administrators told many participants that they should
not participate in certain activities on campus until they had grown in their
career, and ideally had tenure, which included a number of opportunities
aligned with their feminist identities. For example, during her first year,
Madeline talked with me about her interest in getting involved in activist
and advocacy groups on campus. I followed up with her in her second
year to see if she had joined any of the groups. She had asked her depart-
ment chair about two campus committees. Even though her chair did not
prohibit her from joining them, she was told that “it would absolutely be
meaningless because [she’s] untenured. Nobody would listen to [her].”
Madeline received the message that she was without a voice and without
power. Any efforts to engage in activism on campus would be futile.
Molly and Barbara were in unique situations at their respective institu-

tions. Both of them worked at colleges that employed a large number of
Mormon faculty. The intersection of gender and religion created circum-
stances that influenced how they engaged as women and feminists. For
instance, Molly shared that men are told to be careful interacting with
women to whom they are not married. This situation put her in an awk-
ward and silencing position as men spoke more often to other men, which
placed her outside of formal and informal conversations in her depart-
ment. In addition, Molly shared that it was too risky to be involved in
activism as an academic because the campus, and Mormon, communities
view “feminism as a swear word.”
Barbara talked with me about how she navigated her role as a Mormon,
an academic, and a feminist. She described her scholarship as not “explic-
itly feminist” because she did not
want to deal with [her] coworkers… it’s not even that [she thought] they’d
be unprofessional. It’s just that I know a lot of them are coming from very
different perspectives and [she didn’t] want to sit here having to defend it
or having to talk about it. [She didn’t] want to even deal with having to
educate them all on privilege.
In addition, Barbara explained that she was expected to stay in good stand-
ing with her church. Annually, her bishop must complete a form stating
he does not know of any concerns that would compromise a member’s
position in the church. As a result, she was more cautious about express-
ing her feminist identity at work. Instead, she, like Molly, was active on
Mormon feminist discussion boards and Facebook, where the communi-
ties included like-minded individuals. They found spaces where they could
be authentic and be heard.
Liberation Despite the many constraints participants felt as women, femi-

nists, and early career academics, most found ways to engage as feminist
academics and activists. Within their individual constructions of activism,
these new academics created opportunities to be agentic and audacious,
standing up for themselves and others. Most often, activism was tempered,
individualized, and contextualized within their academic identities. Other
times, however, activism was more expansive and collective. Participants
took risks to be true to their feminist activist identities, without losing
sight of their academic selves. Yet, there were also stories of regret and
178 J. HART
frustration at not being as involved in the feminist movement to end sex-

ism within and outside the academy as they hoped.
Labor as activism Participants discussed how their formal academic work

was activist. They integrated their feminist identities into their teaching,
service, and research and the outcomes were often explicitly feminist and
activist in nature. Many explained that they relied on their day-to-day work
as vehicles for activism, and attending to those responsibilities often meant
that they did not have time for other forms of activism. Ellen discussed her
activist work in this way, “sometimes I do feel really guilty about it [not
doing more activist work] and then at other times I remind myself that I
do tend to consider academic work activist work for the most part.”
When describing the role feminism and activism played in participants’

role as teachers, they talked about process and content. For example, a
number of participants talked about using feminist pedagogical strategies
in class, such as drawing on lived experiences, trying to mitigate the power
differences between instructor and students, and relying on discussion and
reflection as primary modes of teaching and learning. About her approach
to feminist teaching, Buffy shared, “I like to share some authority with the
students, and a very discussion-centered teaching style, and interactive-
teaching style. And I think that teaching style is definitely influenced by
my feminism, and my feminist identity.”
Many participants intentionally incorporated feminist and activist con-
tent in their courses. Madeline taught a queer identities class in which she
talked about Act Up, an activist movement focused on improving the lives
of those living with HIV and AIDS. She also shared that she wanted to
create a course on activist journalism. Rosemary was also intentional about
integrating activism in her curriculum, sharing “So I feel like teaching and
getting students involved in activism through the scholarship is probably
my closest thing to activism.” Molly, who is in the arts and humanities,
shared that so much of her field is very colonial and privileges white men.
As a result, she explained, “whenever there’s an opportunity to talk about
and critique through kind of a basic lens of feminism particular ideas or
particular works of art that we’re looking at, I try to bring that into class
discussion.” Participants also brought their feminist identities and activist
messages into other faculty members’ classrooms as invited guest lecturers
and to students through mentoring. Amelia was very excited about her
conversations with one young student who was working with her on a
research project. During the project, the student told her “I never really
thought about myself as a feminist but I totally am now.”
Participants described service responsibilities as outlets for feminist
activism. However, service was a complicated endeavor, as previously
discussed. Some early career faculty experienced service as exploitive and
an activist constraint. Unlike Nayeli and Amelia, who were asked by their
presidents to serve, several other women volunteered to be members of
search committees. They used these platforms to advocate for women
candidates and challenge sexist practices that emerged in search pro-
cesses. Other feminist projects included advisement, both formally and
informally, of student groups and in organizing campus events around
feminist issues. For example, Molly helped to start an annual event of
research, discussion, and art about women’s bodies, which is “taboo”
within her campus community; Rosemary worked with others to invite
speakers to her campus focused on feminist issues, including social jus-
tice; and Charlie began the bureaucratic work of establishing a Little
Free Library on campus.
Just as classrooms and service commitments were spaces for feminist
knowledge production and activist messages, participants also described
their scholarship as activist, incorporating their feminist identities through-
out their work. For example, when Ellen reflected on some of her earlier
work, she realized that it was not explicitly feminist and inconsistent with
her positionality. Thus, starting her position as a faculty member gave her
the chance to reframe that work and assert her feminist identity. She said,
Here I am, feminism is my thing. This is my approach to the world, this is

what I’m talking about in my job talks, and I have this article published that
doesn’t talk about feminism at all. I’ve now continued that project and I’m
taking a feminist lens.
Foregrounding activism within her scholarship, Susan was interested in

feminist activism among college students. Describing a recent project, she
declared, “I’m doing an ethnographic study following the activism that a
lot of these students on campuses have been involved with. And a lot of
activists have now—have since graduated and we’re still sort of following
their work.” In this way, Susan expressed the content and outcomes of her
work as activist. This is to say that she is studying activism as a subject,
and the scholarship that results is also activist in its intention to transform
policy and practice related to gender on campuses.
180 J. HART
Integrating her feminist identities in and outside of academe, Molly

created a national survey to help inform the Mormon church about the
status of women in the faith. She acknowledged that this inquiry is outside
of her primary research agenda in her discipline, and has used her passion
for this project to expand her agenda. She had little hesitation in conduct-
ing this work, in part because she is primarily accountable for teaching,
not research. Conducting feminist research was safer than other activism
because it was not going to be showcased in her tenure and promotion
process.
However, unlike Molly, Barbara was more risk-adverse and an excep-
tion to rest of the participants who conducted feminist scholarship, reflect-
ing “I would say I’ve definitely been proactive when it comes to feminism
or Mormon feminism from that perspective, but in terms of my own
research, I am probably actively avoiding it for better or for worse.” For
her, the risk of disapproval from the Mormon community led her to avoid
engaging in scholarship. Yet, for the other participants, scholarship, as
compared to teaching and service, was perceived as one of the safest out-
lets for expressing their feminist identities.
To be heard and to be bold There were times when nearly all participants
felt compelled to be bold, where their feminist and activist selves could no
longer be silent. Sometimes these actions were at work; other times, par-
ticipants engaged in collective action off campus in their larger commu-
nities. For those who found time to get involved in feminist projects off
campus, the degree of their involvement varied. They signed petitions for
causes they believed in, joined local chapters of the American Association
of University Women, served on boards of local women’s shelters and sex-
ual violence crisis centers, and donated to causes in which they believed.
For Nayelli, whether off or on campus, every moment of every day was
an act of resistance. She eloquently captured what it meant to be a woman
of color, pointing out,
Those are the kinds of things—so I feel like being a person of color, every-
thing I do is a form of resistance. Everything I—everywhere I go is an act
of resistance. And I say that because people are always surprised that I’m an
academic, and they tell me. “You don’t look like a faculty member. You look
like a student.” And I’m like “Well, what does a faculty member look like?”
Right? Or they’re insinuating that I don’t look like one. Well, what does one
look like as an academic?
In a very different way, Hannah was emboldened to act on several issues

she identified in her academic program that were contentious, especially
with some of her senior colleagues. She continued to fight for her con-
victions and would not back down when her colleagues took a different
position. In addition, she stood up for a student in her program who was
not treated well. Hannah said,
My colleagues railroaded a graduate student of color last year and if I hadn’t

done, I’m just going to be really frank, if I hadn’t done some backend advo-
cacy, I’m pretty sure we would have been sued and I wouldn’t have blamed
the student for a second. I would have left the institution over this.
Molly was equally steadfast in her position, discussing how silence was a
sign of being complicit. This was especially relevant to her activist work
within the Mormon community. She recognized she was working against
great recalcitrance, but she could not retreat, saying,
And so I’m trying to create religious change. I also think that religion is one
of the last places where sexism is perfectly acceptable, and a lot of women
in the world are affected by religion and religious culture, and by pushing
against patriarchal, sexist religious culture. I feel like, in some small way, I’m
contributing to the ending of that, or the questioning of that or the chang-
ing of things.
Rosemary realized that her reaction to a more senior colleague was poten-
tially risky; however, she needed to address his sexist language. She was
communicating with him over email and recalled,
But at the bottom of the email, he quoted this guy who came to speak about
environmentalism and he said, “If we’re going to change the environment,
we can’t be such pussies.” I almost fucking died. Like, this is the institution I
work at. And so I waited a day, and then I wrote just a very diplomatic email
that was about how we were asked in the email to come forward with how
our disciplines addressed issues in the environment, and I kind of explained
briefly what eco-feminist philosophy was and how it’s tied to anti-war p olitics
and how that’s how I explain it in my classes, and I sent a few citations, and
I said, “I’m so excited to be in dialogue with you all, but I need to say
182 J. HART
that I’m a little alarmed by the use of sexist rhetoric by my colleague.” And I
guess what I should have done as a first year faculty is just not said anything.
But at the same time, if the idea about becoming a feminist academic is
that you want to change things for the better, not saying anything certainly
wasn’t going to do anything.
Just as Rosemary said above, Susan lamented that there are ways that fac-
ulty are expected to behave; however, to be a feminist academic, challeng-
ing those implicit (and occasionally, explicit) rules is necessary. I asked
Susan the following:
When you think about this idea of needing to, possibly needing to, tone it
down, how much of that is tied to knowing that these are the individuals
who are going to potentially make your tenure decision?
She responded, saying,
Yeah, it comes up for me, but I try really hard not to let it, because I think
that we – I get disappointed in my peers for – I feel like we use it as an excuse
to not have to have hard conversations a lot of times. And I think part of
the reason I refuse to knock myself down or be less bold is that as a white
person, I have a responsibility to be saying some of this stuff because I can
certainly be heard differently than my women of color colleagues, obviously,
not different than my man colleagues. So, part of it is that I feel like I have
to speak up because I can, in some ways, get away with things. So that’s
definitely part of it.
Ultimately, participants believed that being bold and being heard, being
audacious and agentic matters and is inherent to academic feminism.
However, as discussed earlier, doing so was difficult and not without risk;
and navigating the tension of their feminist academic selves and these chal-
lenges was often emotionally wrought.
Discussion
The themes of constraints and liberation captured the experiences of the
women feminist academics in this study. These themes, however, should
not be understood as binary. Instead, the themes are messy and overlap.
Participants negotiate the constraints of their academic contexts, as they
perform as feminist activist beings. In performing, there is no one way to
express feminism and activism—or gender or race or other interlocking

identities. Rather the contexts create spaces for each person to choose how
to perform.35 They negotiate the clarion call to be bold and be heard—
sometimes they were tempered, other times they were loud. Still other
times, as Nayelli highlighted, their marked bodies leave no choice but to
always face resistance.
Participants received clear messages from colleagues, and also recalled
from anticipatory socialization in graduate school36 that as early career
academics, they must be quiet and compliant. Not only is this an expecta-
tion for early career faculty in general, but for women-identified faculty
the message is even clearer, as they are often told “not to rock the boat”
and remain silent.37 Similarly, as women, they were expected to “be nice”38
and engage in “smile work” and “mom work” as part of their responsi-
bilities.39 Failing to do so might risk support from colleagues, especially
when they are prepared to go up for tenure and promotion.40 Yet, these
messages conflict with participants’ identities as feminist activists and they
are unwilling to sacrifice the same. However, at times, they may satisfice.41
I argue that the masculine culture of academe and the power embed-
ded in the hierarchy of faculty (particularly by academic rank) influence
the strategies academic feminists feel confident using to advance their
agendas. In this way, activism is most often observed and enacted as pro-
fessionalized.42 Further, the self-censorship explored above is not a free
choice. Instead, early career feminist academics are most often tempered
and silent because there is little room in a masculine institution to be oth-
erwise, without the looming consequences of no longer being a faculty
member.
More often than not, participants’ activist identities could not be fore-
grounded. Their faculty selves took precedent, which are modeled after
masculine norms.43 They did engage in activism, most often within the
context of teaching, service, and research.44 Their activism was largely
individualized, not collective. Moreover, although participants engaged in
service responsibilities, they were often told to avoid service, which is one
of the few opportunities to meet like-minded colleagues outside of their
departments. In addition, service is something that early career faculty are
to be protected from—such language is not only paternalistic, but also
discursively limits faculty agency. Although likely not intentional, these
messages serve to isolate faculty, limiting the possibility of collective action
within the academic context.
184 J. HART
However, service can also place faculty in a double-bind. Service can

create opportunities to develop networks and relationships outside their
departments and to be activists. Yet, it can also be used to exploit labor,
constrain activism, and reinforce notions that women faculty should be
engaged in “institutional housekeeping.”45 Thus, it is not surprising that
participants expressed mixed feelings about service and its intersection
with their gender and feminist activist identities.
Masculine institutions are also greedy institutions.46 Participants must
be loyal to bounded (i.e., masculine) constructions of academic life, allow-
ing no time for competing roles within and outside the institution, of
which activism may be perceived as such. In this context, their labor is
exploited,47 compelling them to become beholden to the institution and
the profession. Moreover, “faculty members are expected not only to per-
form their instructional and academic charge, but to make up in passion
and commitment what [the institution] lacks in resources.”48 This com-
mitment to the organization, or emotional labor, often comes at physi-
cal and psychic costs for those faculty members, like the participants in
this study. At the same time, the institution economically benefits by not
investing in other resources to do the work, because it is already accounted
for.49 In these ways, it is difficult for faculty to find time to do more,
including engage in activism, within and outside of the academy. For par-
ticipants in this study, when they were able to do so, the types of engage-
ment were largely more passive, such as becoming a member of a group,
donating to a cause, or signing a petition.
Early career academics are also socialized to believe that once they have
tenure, they can be bolder and louder. However, socialization is a pow-
erful process.50 Spending six years largely performing within constraints,
as professionalized activists, becomes ingrained and habitual. Further, as
Ana M. Martínez Alemán discussed in Chapter 10, the work of earlier
generations of feminist activists has eroded due to the corporatization
(and enhanced masculinization) of the university. Thus, newer faculty,
like those in this study, may observe these setbacks and consider whether
foregrounding their activist selves is worth the effort. Once again, the
masculine institution limits what activism tends to look like. Thus, it is
not surprising that the feminist activism in which participants engaged
was professionalized, and post-tenure, is likely to continue to be so. In
other words, as tenured feminist activists they will be inclined to engage in
change efforts that are tempered, quiet, and constrained.
It is worth noting, however, as previous research found, that profes-

sionalized activism can bring change and that there are possibilities for
activist professionals.51 Moreover, academic feminism can and should be
performed in multiple ways. At the same time, the potential for activist
professionals within the masculine academy is limited, which makes dis-
mantling institutionalized sexism more difficult.
Implications for Practice
The implications for the findings in this study are clear: transforming the
academy to create equity and social justice and to advance feminist agen-
das is not a simple task. Academic feminists, especially those in early career,
are constrained to become feminist academics. Just as with professional-
ized activists and activist professionals, what is foregrounded in faculty
identities is shaped by the professoriate and the institutions in which we
work. Moreover, if early career women faculty enter the professoriate with
a desire to foreground their feminist activist selves and are quickly met
with resistance, retaining them becomes difficult, as does recruiting oth-
ers in the future. Ultimately, the masculine institution is reinforced and
reified.
If colleges and universities are interested in confronting institution-
alized sexism and dismantling the masculine institution, how we train
graduate students and socialize early career faculty who have a commit-
ment to feminist activism must change. Addressing the exploitation of
faculty labor, especially gendered labor, and thinking deeply about what
such exploitation does to academic freedom is critical. Understanding that
service can be greatly beneficial for early career feminist women is war-
ranted—but this should not mean more work, nor meaningless work in
terms of promotion and tenure.
Conclusion
The collective stories of the early career women feminist academics in this
study highlighted many of the same tensions Pamela Eddy and Kelly Ward
explored in Chapter 2 of this volume. Specifically, the masculine structure
of higher education and the faculty profession often overshadowed faculty
agency—both individual and collective—and activism. Participants were
often constrained and marginalized as women and feminists, leading them
with little choice other than to betray their activist selves. However, they
186 J. HART
also took calculated risks and experienced moments of liberation and bold-
ness, most often tempered by their responsibilities as a professional within
a masculine organization. As such, there was a much greater capacity for
professionalized activism, which largely played into the normative struc-
ture for the organization. The organization placed thresholds on activist
behaviors. It also perpetuated ideal worker norms, suppressed agency, and
kept early career feminist academics focused on the singular route to ten-
ure and promotion.
At the same time, participants’ stories serve as a reminder that gen-
der, feminism, and activism in any form remain salient, meaningful, and
necessary. Sexism is still part of the fabric of higher education and faculty
profession and professionalized activism is no longer a sufficient method
to end discrimination and inequities. If change is to come to institutions,
if institutional sexism and masculine organizations are to disappear, then
room must be made for feminist activist professionals.
Notes
1. Newson, “Academic Feminism’s Entanglements with University
Corporatization,” 43.
2. Allan, “Women’s Status in Higher Education: Equity Matters”; De
Welde and Stepnik, Disrupting the Culture of Silence: Confronting
Gender Inequality and Making Change in Higher Education;
Glazer-Raymo, Unfinished Agendas: New and Continuing Gender
Organizations”; Mayock and Radulescu, Feminist Activism in
Academia: Essays on Personal Political and Professional Change.
4. Mayock and Radulescu, Feminist Activism in Academia: Essays on
Personal Political and Professional Change, 1.
5. Whitt, “‘Hit the Ground Running:’ Experiences of New Faculty in
a School of Education.”
6. Barata, Hunjan, and Leggatt, “Ivory Tower? Feminist Women’s
Experiences of Graduate School”; Marine and Lewis, “‘I’m in this
for Real:’ Revisiting Young Women’s Feminist Becoming.”
7. Baker’s Dozen, “Feminist Student Voices.”
8. Gouws, “Reflections on Being a Feminist Academic/Academic
Feminism in South Africa.”
9. Hill Collins, On Intellectual Activism, ix.
10. Ibid., xii.

12. Hill Collins, On Intellectual Activism, ix.
13. Ibid.
14. Hart, “Activism among Feminist Academics: Professionalized

Activism and Activist Professionals”; Hart, “Mobilization among
Women Academics: The interplay between Feminism and
Professionalism”; Hart, “Creating Faculty Activism and Grassroots
Leadership: An Open Letter to Aspiring Activists”; Hart, “Faculty
Activism and Family Friendly Policies.”
15. Campbell and O’Meara, “Faculty Agency: Departmental Contexts
that Matter in Faculty Careers.”
16. Meyerson, Tempered Radicals: How Everyday Leaders Inspire
Change at Work.

18. Hart, “Creating Networks as an Activist Strategy: Differing

Approaches Among Academic Feminist Organizations.”
19. Kezar and Lester, Enhancing Campus Capacity for Leadership: An
Examination of Grassroots Leaders in Higher Education; Meyerson,
Tempered Radicals: How Everyday Leaders Inspire Change at Work.

21. McCann and Kim, Feminist Theory Reader.
22. This study was reviewed by The University of Missouri (Project
Number 1209064).
23. Clandinin, Engaging in Narrative Inquiry.
24. Ibid.
25. Clandinin, Engaging in Narrative Inquiry; Connelly and
Clandinin, “Narrative Inquiry.”
188 J. HART
26. Creswell, Qualitative Inquiry and research Design: Choosing Among

Five Approaches.
27. Chase, “Narrative Inquiry: Multiple Lenses, Approaches, Voices.”
28. Polkinghorne, “Narrative Configurations as Qualitative Analysis.”
29. Weis and Fine, Speed Bumps: A Student-Friendly Guide to

Qualitative Research.
30. Ahmed, On Being Included.

Organizations.”
32. Ropers-Huilman, Feminist Teaching in Theory and Practice:
Situating Power and Knowledge in the Poststructural Classroom.
33. Lourde, “The Master’s Tools Will Never Dismantle the Master’s
House,” 99.
34. Lincoln and Guba, Naturalistic Inquiry.
36. Austin, “Preparing the Next Generation of Faculty: Graduate

School as Socialization to the Academic Career”; Whitt, “‘Hit the
Ground Running:’ Experiences of New Faculty in a School of
Education.”
37. Blackmore, Troubling Women: Feminism, Leadership, and
Educational Change; De Welde and Stepnick, Disrupting the
Culture of Silence: Confronting Gender Inequality and Making
Change in Higher Education; Seltzer, The Coach’s Guide for Women
Professors Who Want a Successful Career and a Well-Balanced Life.
38. Bettis, Jordan, and Montgomery, “Girls in Groups: The Preps and
the Sex Mob Try Out for Womanhood.”
Socialization in Academe.
40. Hill Collins, On Intellectual Activism; Tierney and Bensimon,
Promotion and Tenure: Community and Socialization in Academe.
41. Simon, “Rational Choice and the Structure of the Environment.”


Organizations.”

45. Bird, Litt, and Wang, “Creating Status of Women Reports:

Institutional Housekeeping as ‘Women’s Work.’”
46. Coser, Greedy Institutions: Patterns of Undivided Commitement;
Wolf-Wendel and Ward, “Academic Life and Motherhood:
Variations by Institutional Type.”
47. Rhoades, “From the General Secretary: What We Do to Our

Young.”
48. Gonzales and Ayers, “A New Theoretical Approach for Considering
the Expectations and Experiences of Community College Faculty,”
7.
49. Ibid.
Socialization in Academe.

Activism and Activist Professionals.”
CHAPTER 9
Gender Equity in Austrian University

Contexts: Constructions of Power,
Knowledge, and Response-ability
in the Process of Change
Rebecca Ropers-Huilman, Leah J. Reinert,
and Kate Diamond
Higher education around the world is in a state of flux. Economic crises,

shifting priorities and values, and increasing globalization all contribute
to a sense of change that is felt throughout our institutions of higher
learning. Amidst that change, one of the key questions challenging higher
education relates to who universities are meant to serve within the broader
R. Ropers-Huilman (*)
University of Minnesota, College of Education and Human Development,
Minneapolis, MN, USA
L.J. Reinert
Higher Education and Student Affairs Leadership, University of Northern
Colorado, Greeley, CO, USA
K. Diamond
Organizational Leadership, Policy, and Development Department,
University of Minnesota, College of Education and Human Development,
Minneapolis, MN, USA

192 R. ROPERS-HUILMAN ET AL.
society. More pointedly, the ways in which people’s intersectional identi-

ties affect their ability to participate in and reap the benefits of educational
opportunity at all levels is a challenging global dilemma.
Gender is one identity that has affected people’s ability to participate
in higher education. Many of the country and regional reports on gen-
der equity in postsecondary education focus on numbers. For example,
UNESCO1 reports that women constitute the majority of undergradu-
ates in most nations. Yet, the percentage of women decreases as the
positional power increases, including at the levels of professor or rec-
tor/president. In the Nordic countries—arguably one of the most
advanced regions in the world in terms of gender equity—87 % of
the research centers funded by federal funds to advance “excellence”
are directed by men.2 These numbers are important, but they are not
enough to determine the type of future strategies necessary to achieve
gender equity.
In this chapter, we use the theoretical lens of feminist poststructural-
ism to investigate how gender equity work is understood and enacted
in Austrian university contexts. This lens highlights the ways in which
gender is constructed within discourses that are shaped by relations of
power and knowledge in localized contexts. Given that gender equity is
part of a broader agenda of educational equity, we center this analysis
on the ways in which historically marginalized people and their allies
can move toward equity in universities, rather than viewing equality
narrowly as numerical representation. Specifically, we use interview data
to illuminate how power, knowledge, and response-ability (or the ability
of individuals to respond within their contexts) are constructed by poli-
cies and practices meant to expand opportunities for women and others
who have been historically marginalized in their educational systems. In
line with the purpose of this book, we believe that the Austrian context
provides a unique opportunity to consider how well-intentioned poli-
cies related to gender equity can have intended and unintended effects.
Our analysis of the Austrian context from a feminist poststructural per-
spective provides an example of how theory can be used to illustrate
how policy reflects and shapes discourses within which inequities have
been constructed.
The chapter draws on narrative interviews with 26 university personnel
who have some responsibility and/or commitment to equity initiatives in
their institutions in Austria.3 It focuses specifically on how power, knowl-
GENDER EQUITY IN AUSTRIAN UNIVERSITY CONTEXTS: CONSTRUCTIONS... 193
edge, and response-ability are constructed by policies and practices related

to gender equity. Because context matters to equity initiatives, we use a
feminist poststructural analytic lens. Feminist poststructuralism is a posi-
tion that holds that identities (including gender identities) are constructed
within social contexts through a discursive interplay of power, knowledge,
language, and difference.4 It follows, as Baxter articulates, that discourse
is viewed as the “site for the construction and contestation of social mean-
ings.”5 Using this lens, this chapter focuses on how higher education per-
sonnel (to include senior leaders, academic staff members, and mid-level
administrators) make sense of policies and practices intended to foster
gender equity in their universities. This focus enriches scholarship on gen-
der equity in higher education through attention to power, knowledge,
and response-ability as essential considerations in understanding opportu-
nities and barriers related to equity-oriented change.
Feminist Poststructural Approaches to Inquiry

Feminist poststructural approaches to inquiry foreground the ways in
which discourses shape subjectivities through the positioning and nego-
tiations of power, difference, and knowledge as expressed through lan-
guage.6 According to Allan:
1) discourses are more than words on paper—they are constellations of

words and images that produce meaning; 2) discourse (and language) are
dynamic and not only reflect, but also produce culture; and 3) it is through
discourse that we gain a sense of ourselves (subjectivities) and come to inter-
pret the physical and social aspects of the world in which we live.7
Importantly, both discourses and subjectivities change depending on con-

text, existing relations of power and resistance, and institutional manifes-
tations of contemporary social understandings and relations. As Foucault
writes:
Power must be understood in the first instance as the multiplicity of force

relations immanent in the sphere in which they operate and which constitute
their own organization; as the process which, through ceaseless struggles
and confrontations, transforms, strengthens, or reverses them; as the sup-
port which these force relations find in one another, thus forming a chain or
system, or on the contrary, the disjunctions and contradictions which isolate
them from one another; and lastly, as the strategies in which they take effect,
whose general design or institutional crystallization is embodied in the state

apparatus, in the formulation of the law, in the various social hegemonies.8
These unstable and shifting power relations lead to various experiences

of shifting subjectivity, such that the agency of participants in any given
discourse or organization is intertwined with what is seen as possible given
the relations of power-knowledge in that setting.
In Morley’s words, “Discourses form the academy and are, in part,
formed by it, but there are social and material factors influencing who
participates and how in the process of knowledge production and con-
sumption.”9 Academic leaders, staff members, and administrators choose
actions within the discourses that have shaped their academic environ-
ments. These environments shape their abilities and desires to respond
to what they see as challenges or problems in their environments. As
Elizabeth Allan describes:
If we accept the poststructural premise that discourse is dynamic and bound

to its historical moment, then subjectivity constituted through discourse is
also not fixed or stable. Rather, according to poststructuralism, each of us is
continually engaged in a process of locating ourselves within discursive fields
and drawing upon discourses to represent ourselves.10
In relation to policy development and implementation, these constant

shifts raise questions about who has power and knowledge to both iden-
tify and construct a policy problem, and who has the response-ability to
address it.
When used as a lens through which to view policies, feminist poststruc-
tural policy analysis foregrounds “policy-as-discourse.” Allan explains:
From a poststructural perspective, policies are not static entities imple-

mented to shift the balance of power in one direction or another. A view of
policy-as-discourse shapes understandings of policy as actively circulating,
intervening and intervened upon at micro-levels of society and enmeshed
in a complex and contradictory process of negotiation. This perspective
serves to disrupt and displace traditional approaches to policy analysis by
highlighting how policy actively produces subjects, knowledge, and per-
ceived truths.11
Considering “policy-as-discourse” prompts many questions. Who has the

ability to respond to existing policies or what they produce? How has
that ability/responsibility shifted over time in relation to the policy mix?

What is being produced by particular policies in particular contexts? What
forms of power and agency are seen as possible by those participating in a
given discourse? Rather than seeking the “goodness” or “effectiveness” of
existing policy, feminist poststructural policy analysis asks questions about
how competing ideas and interpretations are taken up and how assump-
tions inform both policy development and implementation. Further, this
theoretical framework resists notions of progress that obscure complexi-
ties related to both problems and solutions. According to Elizabeth Allan,
Susan Iverson, and Rebecca Ropers-Huilman:
FPS [Feminist Poststructurism] has served to help each of us unthink and

think differently about the inherent “goodness” of policy-making, policy
analysis, and policy practices in the context of higher education. This is not
to say that nothing good can come of policy. Rather, it is a shared rec-
ognition that policy problems and solutions are made intelligible through
dominant systems of meaning (discourses) that foreground particular per-
spectives. When hegemonic meaning systems are employed via policy to
solve problems, they are not transformative and can contribute to undercut-
ting attempts to promote social justice.12
If systemic changes to long-standing discursive patterns are to be advo-

cated, different frames of logic need to be interrogated and understood,
especially as each makes competing claims to power and validates differ-
ent knowledges, rendering different people response-able in and to given
situations.13
The use of feminist poststructural policy analysis in this chapter allows
consideration of what gender equity policies are suppressed and pro-
duced for the academic leaders, administrators, and staff members who
participated in this study. We focus on who is seen as “responsible” for
implementing gender equity measures and how those responsibilities
are both taken up and resisted within the specific contexts of Austrian
universities.
Methods
The chapter discussion is based on a study conducted in Austria in the
spring of 2014. Specifically, it focuses on how gender equity is imple-
mented and negotiated in higher education institutions in Austria, how
success is defined and assessed by the Austrian academic culture, and who
is invested in the success (or failure) of these initiatives. This inquiry is sit-
uated within a larger conversation about the shifting policy climate Austria
has experienced in the last decade related to both higher education and
gender equity.
The research is grounded in a qualitative and constructivist approach
to knowledge that seeks to understand how participants make sense of
a given experience. Through this lens, this study primarily focused on
how academic staff members and administrators perceived organizational
change and policy implementation related to gender equity. To understand
participants’ understandings of gender equity policy implementation, we
interviewed academic staff or administrative staff members who have been
involved in some way in efforts to implement policy directives to achieve
greater gender equity in Austrian universities. These participants included
academic staff members affiliated with gender studies units or whose
involvement in the university is related to gender equity. Additionally, they
included administrators working in coordination centers responsible for
facilitating gender equity measures, as well as people who serve on the
Working Group for Equal Opportunity committees. Each participant has
been professionally involved in some way with gender equity initiatives in
Austrian universities; however, their different positionalities and responsi-
bilities yielded different perspectives about the efficacy and reasonableness
of the policy implementation.
A goal of this study was to interact with those most directly associ-
ated with gender equity and mainstreaming policies, as well as those who
were in positions to observe the effects of policy implementation that has
occurred. Toward that end, I (Ropers-Huilman) formally interviewed
seven senior administrators or policy makers, ten mid-level administra-
tors with responsibilities related to gender equity in their institutions, and
nine academic staff/faculty members with some involvement in gender-
related initiatives or scholarship. These participants worked at ten differ-
ent Austrian universities (out of the 22 in Austria) and two additional
organizations.
Interviews14 utilized a semi-structured approach to ensure that ques-
tions addressed critical issues, yet allowed for participants to share nuanced
perspectives. Each interview lasted approximately 60–90 minutes and
was recorded and fully transcribed. We assigned a pseudonym to each
transcript to ensure confidentiality. After all data had been collected by
Ropers-Huilman, all three co-authors of this paper collaboratively devel-
oped the codes for data analysis according to both what we saw as most
salient in the interviews and questions we brought to the analysis. The
codes reflected what participants expressed as important elements of their
experiences and various components of the theoretical lenses we hoped
to use. In this way, we used a context-based and data-based approach
to analyzing the data.15 To ensure consistency in coding, we each coded
several transcripts and then consulted with each other to verify our under-
standings of the coding structure. At this meeting, we changed our initial
coding structure to reflect our collective understandings. The interpreta-
tions of the interviews were informed by a document analysis and infor-
mal conversations with rectors, administrators, academic staff members,
and others who work at Austrian universities. To aid in understanding the
specifics of Austrian higher education and the gender equity policies driv-
ing change, we first discuss findings of women’s overall status in Austria,
the overall policy context driving change toward gender equity, and the
challenges and successes of those policies. Next, we discuss findings high-
lighting the implementation of Austria’s gender equity policies within
the different roles, groups, and positions in Austrian higher education
institutions.
The Austrian Context

Austria largely fits a gendered profile that is present throughout much
of the world, with women’s participation in first college degrees at or
above parity and their participation in more advanced degrees and aca-
demic staff/leadership roles regularly below parity. Specifically, in Austria,
though varying by discipline, overall women represent the majority of first
degree students, 43 % of its Ph.D. graduates, 38 % of its total academic
staff, and only 17 % of its most senior professors.16 As throughout most
countries in Europe, this imbalance creates a situation wherein decision-
making power and knowledge construction are structurally gendered.17 It
also leads to a deep concern for the “loss of talent for society and a lack of
diversity in the workplace, each of which presents a potential threat to the
search for excellence in research.”18
The quest for gender equity in higher education has been conceptual-
ized and enacted differently across national contexts.19 Austria has experi-
enced significant policy initiatives over the last decade, including explicit
attempts to address gender inequities. For example, Austria’s 2002
University Act specifies: “All university bodies shall make efforts to achieve
a balanced representation of men and women at work in all areas of uni-

versity activities.”20 This Act also granted Austrian universities much more
autonomy in making decisions more independently from the Ministry of
Education. Like other European nations, Austria has also been affected
by European Union (EU) initiatives establishing priorities and processes
in education and other social institutions, such as the Bologna Process
and the European Commission’s statements on gender mainstreaming.
As Ursula Müller wrote, the focus on gender mainstreaming particularly
shifts the framing of gender equity work from its traditional forms:
The concept of gender mainstreaming does not address the exclusion of

women as a “repair task” but as an organizational task that will optimize the
recruitment of personnel in order to activate potentials. It demands a change
in perspective because the powerful actors in the university question what they
themselves do to either exclude or welcome women into the university.21
As Müller points out, policy changes are shifting perceptions of respon-

sibility to implement changes and advance gender equity, and each con-
text shapes the ways in which gender mainstreaming is implemented. The
sociopolitical context influences how gender is salient in higher educa-
tion, and the Austrian context is shaped by: (1) increased autonomy and
accountability of postsecondary institutions; (2) an uncertain economic/
employment context; (3) a conservative culture regarding gender roles;
and (4) unfavorable comparisons with other EU nations in terms of
existing gender equity.22 Similar to many universities around the world,
Austrian universities are also increasingly managerial, with implications for
equity-oriented action. Specifically:
With regard to today’s prevailing managerial structures, the following

questions occur from a feminist perspective. Are there conditions in which
collective activism supports individual feminist action in an organizational
context where gender equality represents a top-down agenda but is not part
of the organization’s core? How can feminist action be organized in order
to support gender equality in managerial contexts?23
Given the current sociopolitical context, the explicit policy commitment to

gender equity, and the implementation of gender mainstreaming, Austria
is a particularly rich environment to examine how gender equity initiatives
are being implemented and how academic staff members and administra-
tors are involved in those initiatives.
In an example of contextual effects on equity initiatives, Angela

Wroblewski24 suggested that several initiatives at Austrian universities have
experienced success because they were developed in contexts with similar
characteristics. Specifically, the institutions in which they were based were
relatively new, had gender mainstreaming as part of their mission state-
ments, had gender expertise and experience among their staff, engaged
in regular self-reflection about their work, and implemented lessons from
their ongoing self-assessment of programs and initiatives into policy and
practice. The context in which gender equity initiatives are promoted
clearly influences the extent to which those promoting them experience
success.
Policy Context Austrian universities are guided by major policy strate-

gies established by the European Union and Austria that are intended to
promote gender equity. Related to the broad concept of gender main-
streaming, these overarching strategies include quotas, working groups
for equality, coordination centers, women’s advancement plans, and “gen-
der budgeting” that facilitated awareness of how fiscal decisions affected
women and men differently. Because gender mainstreaming is such a
significant touch-point for interviewees in articulating their understand-
ings of policies and related practices, we first discuss it as a key aspect of
gender equity policy. Following this discussion, we briefly describe how
each of the specific strategies is defined and/or constituted in Austrian
universities.
Teresa Rees argues that gender mainstreaming is the conceptual fram-

ing for existing policy approaches in Austrian higher education. As she
writes:
Gender mainstreaming is about integrating gender equality into processes,

policies, and practices.... Gender mainstreaming moves beyond a concern
with numbers and processes to the examination of such phenomena as the
gendering of the institution and indeed of science itself. This move chal-
lenges ideas about the gender neutrality of the social construction of excel-
lence and merit. Equally, it means engaging with the current, pervasive
neglect of a gender dimension in some research projects and indeed in the
pedagogy and curriculum.25
One university’s women’s advancement plan explicitly defines gender

mainstreaming as the guide for their policy implementation:
Gender mainstreaming is the organization, improvement, development

and evaluation of all decision-making processes, with the aim that a gender
equality perspective is incorporated in all strategic concepts at all levels and
in all stages by all stakeholders involved.
Overall, it is clear that Austrian universities have a well-developed policy

framework informed by the European Union, their Ministry, and the spe-
cific circumstances of the institution. However, one of the participants in
this study shared her skepticism about the breadth of implementation of
these frameworks, given the lack of central accountability. She explained:
The measures or the instruments we have at the moment, they work for
those universities that are somehow interested in the topic. Or who have
someone in the institution who takes it up. But they are not sufficient to
force those who in fact ignore it, or maybe not force, but convince. So, the
tricky question is how to get those who are not on track now.
As Barbara Sporn explains, the context for the implementation of gender

mainstreaming has changed due to broader policy changes:
The Austrian Ministry mandated gender mainstreaming in universities in

the first place. With the new legal framework of the University Act 2002,
the situation changed. As this new steering instrument evolves, it has been
interpreted less as a legal requirement and more as an idiosyncratic policy
of affirmative action at the university…. Consequently, university members
tend to perceive the policy as an obligation shaped more by internal rather
than external forces.26
Gender mainstreaming, then, is not a static concept in Austrian universi-

ties. Instead, it is a conceptual approach to equity that is variously con-
tested, resisted, implemented, and applied by stakeholders.
The research presented in this chapter suggests that there is no single
understanding of gender mainstreaming in Austrian higher education.
However, many believe that it is an umbrella term intended to inform
practices that lead to gender equity. Additional and more specific policies
include implementing quotas that establish a strong presence of women
on all decision-making bodies, establishing Working Groups for Equal
Opportunity (Arbeitskreis für Gleichbehandlungsfragen), or supporting
Coordination Centers (Koordinationstellen) that facilitate programs and
serve as a resource for the university on issues related to gender. Some
believe that the Women’s Advancement Plans (Frauenforderungpläne)

that each university is required to have and present to the Ministry of
Education, in which they describe the mechanisms through which they
are seeking to advance women’s full participation at their university, also
fall under the category of gender mainstreaming. Still others spoke of
gender budgeting, a concept that meant that all aspects of the university
should be reviewed to determine if more money is being spent to support
one gender or the other (in a policy that dichotomously frames gender as
men and women, rather than as a continuum on which there are multiple
identities).
The rich policy mix suggests a deep commitment to gender equity.
However, the ways these policies are interpreted in Austrian universities
raises questions about who is responsible for gender equity as well as who
is able to advance their understandings given the larger context. In other
words, these changes have shifted understandings about who has power
and knowledge to be responsible for change.
Power and resistance in equity efforts What power relations do existing

EU and national gender equity policies produce? What knowledge is seen
as valuable in the ability to respond? Focusing on who is seen as respon-
sible for the implementation of gender equity policies and the power and
resistance within those bodies helps provide an understanding of the role
of power.
Even though the power-knowledge relationship is especially impor-

tant in postsecondary education due to the expectation of specialized
knowledge about a range of topics, participants described how those
with knowledge about gender equity are not necessarily those with the
ability to respond to and advance the implementation of these policies.
As such, power and resistance are both actively present in the produc-
tion of “gender equity” in Austrian universities. According to Elizabeth
St. Pierre, “Poststructural feminists believe the struggles of women are
local and specific rather than totalizing. Relations of power are com-
plex and shifting. Resistance and freedom are daily, ongoing practices.”27
In Austria, even though national policies are quite clear about what is
expected in relation to gender equity, the question of who supports and
implements the policies and how those efforts are rewarded is still an
important one.
Implementation of Gender Equity in Practice
If gender equity is an institutional and national priority, as would be sug-

gested by the rich policy mix evident in Austria, the responsibility would
likely be valued explicitly within the institutional reward structures and
expected to be done by both women and men positioned throughout the
institution. Within the formal policy structures, though, the responsibility
for gender equity lies primarily with the Rectorate and the Working Group
for Equal Opportunity. In many ways, this limits the ability of those with
gender expertise to participate actively in advancing gender equity in their
institutions. We turn now to participants’ beliefs about the ways in which
Austria’s gender equity policies identified who was responsible for gender
equity as well as who had the knowledge and ability to create equity-
oriented change.
Rectorate Given the hierarchical nature of Austrian universities, it is per-

haps not surprising that many of the participants in this study pointed to
the rector as being ultimately responsible for gender equity at their institu-
tions. For example, as Ria, an academic staff member, explained, “In some
way, the rector [is] responsible for the whole strategy… our rector lets
you know that he has to take care of gender equity.” Simone concurred
and indicated: “It’s very important that you have the support from the
top. It has to be supported by the rector’s council. It’s important to have
allies and important people who support this idea. That’s surely one of the
facilitators.”
Rectors can advocate for resources from the Ministry or support (or
refuse to support) centers, initiatives, or professorships related to gender.
Their financial and administrative backing is very important in implement-
ing gender equity policies; however, their symbolic support is also crucial
to the cultural transformation that many participants in this study were
seeking. For example, Margit, an academic staff member, said:
We now have a rector… who is rather committed. Of course he’s a manager

and gender is one of many, many, many issues, and he’s not willing to spend
a lot of money towards gender measures, but he’s willing to spend a little
bit more money than the rector before. And he is very open-minded for
what the concerns are, what the issues are …. The most important thing is
that you have a committed head of university or vice rector or something
like that.
The commitment of the rectorate can take many forms. In a few cases, rec-
tors agreed to attend equity-related trainings and invited others to partici-
pate with them. In these institutions, participation became more widespread
and valued. In one case, Berta, a mid-level staff member, explained that:
Especially if we want to get the department directors or chairs, then we need

the rectorate to say let’s go to that.... The [senior academic staff members]
are not really keen for trainings, for any topic, so with lots of staff develop-
ment trainings … the elder professors do not attend…. they don’t expect
that equal opportunities or that our trainings will be interesting for them.
The rectorate is held responsible by the Ministry for paying attention to

gender equity. This responsibility includes using the power of the office to
encourage others to pay attention to the topic and educate themselves on
how to participate in its advancement.
Anna’s comments perhaps most directly pointed to the necessity of
active support in the rectorate if any meaningful change toward gender
equity is to occur. From her perspective as a researcher, she believed:
If the topic is taken up seriously by the management, it really somehow gets

down to all levels of the organization. And if you have on the top some-
one who is ignoring it, you see that everywhere at the university. There are
some actors who are highly committed because of their political ideology or
because they are personally convinced. But there is no structural integration
of equality in the university.… But if you have at the top rectors and univer-
sity management that really addresses equality, and not only in the form that
the rector himself or herself is gender expert, but also for instance with this
division of work with the working group, you have a higher commitment of
all actors involved in appointment procedures.
Anna further explained that the rector did not necessarily need to be “gen-
der competent” because she or he could draw on the expertise of others at
the institution. However, the senior leader did need to ensure that those
making critical decisions in the institution knew that they needed to take
gender equity goals into consideration. Additionally, senior leaders needed
to use the established gender-oriented groups on their campuses as guides
and consultants in making decisions. In Anna’s words:
If you have actors who are not gender competent … they may establish this
division of work between them and the working group. And that’s the case
at several universities, so that for instance, in the context of appointment

procedures for full professors, the rector is the person who has to decide
with which person he negotiates the contract out of three people who are
on the short-list. But several rectors start the negotiation only if the equal
opportunities working group gives its OK that there is no discrimination in
the procedure. So the rector himself is not competent, but he shares this
duty with the institution. There are others who ignore it in the sense that if
there is no open discrimination in the procedure, “I don’t care. I just care to
the extent to which I might get problems.”… So it’s following all rules but
changing nothing. That’s the form of resistance I see in the field.
It was clear from this research that rectors’ support was essential to mak-
ing progress toward gender equity in Austrian universities. Their passivity
or “ignorance” toward these issues was enough to minimize the effects of
strong actors elsewhere in the institution. Additionally, because of university
autonomy that strengthens the role of the rector in institutional decision-
making, the ministry, though still influential, no longer seems to have the
ability to mandate equity efforts in the same ways they previously did.
Rectors have positional power to enact change related to gender equity
policies. However, in many cases, they need to rely on others within the
organization who have the knowledge associated with equity-oriented
change (such as gender studies scholars, mid-level administrators in
Coordination Centers or Working Groups for Equal Opportunity, or key
members of their senior administration) if they are to be effective in mak-
ing both structural and cultural change. As participants explained, the rec-
tor’s ability to respond requires an alignment of power and knowledge,
and often can only be sustained in carefully developed partnerships with
others.
Working Group for Equal Opportunity Each university in Austria is required

to have an Arbeitskreis für Gleichbehandlungsfragen, or a Working Group
for Equal Opportunity, to oversee equity efforts. These working groups
are not constituted identically at all of the universities, though they are
typically comprised of both academic and administrative staff. While ini-
tially focused primarily on gender, the groups now include broader equity
considerations. The Working Group is generally involved in conversations
about equity initiatives on campus, yet they are structurally independent
from the rector, in part because on occasion they may be in a position to
challenge a rector’s decision.
One of the main functions of the Working Group relates to the

implementation of the quota system established in the 2002 University
Act. This quota is meant to ensure that at least 40 % of participants in
decision-making bodies at each university are women. As Margit, a senior
administrator, shared, “If the university doesn’t fulfill the quota, then the
[Working Group] can say no” and stop the process. Emma, an academic
staff member, explained that the Working Group is quite powerful in its
ability to challenge processes related to this quota or any other perceived
discrimination:
The members of the working group … take part in all personnel recruit-
ment processes…. That means whenever a job announcement is made, the
member of the [Working Group] gets it into his or her hands, and if he or
she thinks that it is too broad or too specific, he or she can already say it is
not OK in the light of gender equality. This is where it starts. And members
of the [Working Group] may be present at all hearings. And if they think
that the decision of somebody who is responsible for decision-making, like
specifically the president of the university who is the monocrat who has all
these decisions to take, but also a search panel for professors, if they think a
decision is discriminatory, they can place a veto.
In many ways, one could perceive this policy instrument as being quite
strong, and indeed, quite a few participants expressed their faith in the
efficacy of this group. The Working Group has a voice independent from
others on campus, it has legal standing with an independent appeals pro-
cess outside the institution, and is recognized both in and outside of the
university as a powerful body.
At the same time, even as they emphasized its strength, several partici-
pants described how the Working Group is not as effective as they had
hoped. Uwe, a mid-level administrator, suggested that because the Working
Group is a “professionalized” policy role, “the feedback of the [Working
Group] is often so complex or so detailed that the people couldn’t follow
this and they hate the [Working Group] really because they cannot fol-
low and they think it’s annoying.” Terese, a mid-level administrator who
had experience with a Working Group, said, “We always say for us it’s
transparency. Clear procedures… If it’s equal for everyone, [it] should
be a better procedure.” Nevertheless, several participants felt there was
tension between the work of the Working Group and others on campus
who might not understand or agree with the policy they were required to
uphold.
Other participants shared that even though the Working Group has a
great deal of formal power, its members were not always completely free
to exercise it. As Sigrid, a mid-level staff member, explained:
There’s a big difference between what you find written down and what is
there in theory and what real life looks like…. Members of this Working
Group are people working at the university and you do this on a voluntary
basis. So you are involved in situations where you have to—you work at
your faculty at your department and you’re working there as academic staff,
and at the same time, you’re a member of this working group. So if there’s
a problem you switch to your role as a member of this working group. And
you have to criticize your own boss? Your professor? You should; that’s the
idea of the whole thing. If there’s something going wrong, and somebody is
discriminating against somebody, you have to say “Stop. This is the wrong
way.” But I don’t think people have the possibility of doing this because
they are still at the same time in their role as an academic staff member, and
they are depending on each other.
Emma raised questions about the practical outcomes of the challenges that
the Working Group faces.
If [the Working Group] places such a veto, then this veto is going to the
so-called Schiedskommission, and they have to decide whether the veto is
founded or whether it’s not. And if they think that indeed the decision was
discriminatory, the Schiedskommission can put a halt to this procedure and
say, “This was discriminatory. And you have to take another kind of deci-
sion.”… And as soon as that happens, and as soon as the Schiedskommission
says there has been discrimination, then all the evasion strategies start. What
has been a classic is, if you have this decision, it was discriminatory, then
very often, it’s like, “Oh, now we find out we don’t really need this job. We
don’t need this position. And you know what? We made a mistake in how
we announced the position, so we actually need somebody different when
it comes to qualifications.” I know of hardly any case where in the course
of such a veto and the decision…that it was discriminatory, that the person
for who you did something, that she got the job. It hardly ever happens.
So these procedures are important to establish that gender equality and all
other kinds of equality are important, and that you cannot just do what
you want. But in the individual cases, it’s very rare that the equal treatment
working group comes to the result that is intended.
Here, as in other policy implementation, structure and culture intersect to

produce different outcomes in different contexts.
Summary In Austria, the policy mix has many components and is quite
robust. Those most “responsible” for moving toward equity in this con-
text were the Rectorate and the Working Group for Equal Opportunities.
In each case, though, their ability to create cultural change and respond
effectively to policy problems was limited by multiple modes of resistance
within and outside these entities. This discursive negotiation about gender
equity shaped the effectiveness of equity measures.
Other entities, such as a coordination office, academic staff, and the

Ministry of Education, play supporting roles whose effectiveness is depen-
dent on the context in which they attempt their efforts. However, each
of these entities has been affected by recent shifts in higher education.
Autonomy measures have decreased the level of direct influence of the
Ministry on higher education institutions. Increased pressures to be pro-
ductive in more narrowly tailored ways, along with the changed structures
of academic staff that limit the ability of newer members to fully invest in
one particular institution, have led to a situation in which they are discour-
aged from participating in equity efforts. Additionally, to the extent that
equity work is seen as “activism” rather than an institutional priority that is
everyone’s responsibility, academic staff members need to think carefully
about their roles in promoting equity measures. Even for senior scholars,
the connection between activism and academics is complex. Elke, an aca-
demic staff member, for example, shared that:
I have knowledge. I do of course have a political perspective. I am not an

apolitical person. I think that is necessary to do. But I try to protect my aca-
demic unit in terms of reputation, scientific reputation, not to be too close
to a pure activist group.
For junior scholars, the choice to engage in institutional change work that
could be understood as inappropriately activist is one that carries poten-
tially negative consequences for their individual careers as well as for the
reputations of their units. For junior scholars who are women, this addi-
tional work risks not being valued within the organization as they seek
more advanced professional opportunities.28
The context in which gender equity policies are implemented is largely

shaped by the people in the senior leadership—in the Rectorate—as
well as by those serving on the Working Group. Their interpretations of
the requirements of existing gender equity policies—as well as compet-
ing institutional and personal priorities—shape their commitment to the
implementation of those policies. Their personal and professional beliefs
about why equity measures are important also influence both structures
and cultures on their campuses.
Discussion
I would say we do not question the culture. It’s teaching women how to
adapt to the culture. And that’s also, now I’m talking as a gender researcher,
it’s definitely the most crucial problem, that as long as you are not going
to change the organizational culture and the structure, it will not have a
sustainable effect… I would not deny the importance of empowerment on
the individual level, this is nice and good to have…. [But] it will not help
you on the long term run if you still have to adapt to this structure which
is counterproductive to your life quality, to your understanding of what is
important, this kind of things. So I would say we need definitely a structural
change of the academy. (Elke)
In the Austrian context, a strong gender equity policy framework supports

the work of scholars and leaders as they attempt to engage in work that
changes both institutions and individual practices. Leaders and scholars
point to quotas that require at least 40 % of women and men in decision-
making bodies. These quotas have led to women serving as approximately
50 % of all Vice Rectors even though at the time of this study, only four
of the 22 universities were headed by a woman rector. They also point to
the Working Group for Equal Opportunity, a group that exists in each
university that has the power to stop hiring processes if they believe that
inequitable practices have been used to come to a decision. Even though
Austrian colleagues acknowledged problematic aspects of these policies,
both in their inability to make rapid change and their increased reliance
on women’s work that is not systematically rewarded by existing academic
structures, they were confident that they are the most effective tools they
have in moving from a strongly hierarchical and male-dominated system
to one which is slightly less hierarchical and more equitable in terms of
gender representation across institutions.
Nearly two decades ago, Louise Morley found in her study with femi-
nist academic staff that:
Involvement in equity initiatives was often perceived by informants as the

ultimate example of alienating work in so far as there is no control over
outcomes and influence is fragmented, segmented and unstable. They
maintained their agency, in a time when personal and financial resources are
under pressure, by choosing to apply their feminism to knowledge produc-
tion and curriculum development, rather than to the precarious process of
policy implementation.29
In the Austrian context, we learned that those designated by the institu-

tionalization of gender equity policy as “responsible” for it were not always
equipped or predisposed to make meaningful change because of their lack
of knowledge about equity-oriented change. Additionally, and equally as
important, those who have knowledge about gender equity from both
research and personal experience are often not in positions of power to make
decisions about how to advance gender equity. Those who are equipped to
make such change often felt themselves placed outside the designated struc-
tures of responsibility, thereby rendering them unable to respond. As for
Morley’s participants, the ability of gender studies academic staff or mid-
level administrative personnel in our study to respond through policy enact-
ment is challenged by existing cultures and structures that resist change.
Within discourse about how and why to promote gender equity in
Austrian universities, power and resistance co-exist. And, as Mills sug-
gested, “since discourse is something you do, rather than something to
which you are subjected, engaging with discourses constitutes an interac-
tional relation of power rather than an imposition of power.”30 Given this
perspective, anyone might be able to create change or shift the terms of
the existing equity discourse. However, we learned in this study that the
ways in which participants could shape equity in their institutions were
both facilitated and limited by existing policy frameworks that establish
particular bodies as powerful, others as knowledgeable, and the respon-
sibility for change ambiguous. For example, at times the Rectorate and
Working Groups were not seen as using effective strategies or demonstrat-
ing a commitment to equity measures. Yet, because of how they were
positioned within the existing policy framework, their efforts were seen
as necessary but not sufficient to change the culture of the institution.
Additionally, in most cases, significant changes were initiated primarily
by women and primarily in institutions where there were strong senior
leaders whose commitment was clear and explicit. Each institution seemed
to have different expectations, opportunities and realities related to
response-ability. As illustrated earlier, these differences often depended on
the rector and his or her priorities.
Allan writes that “Policy discourse analysis proceeds from the premise
that policy-making and analysis are discursive practices that both reflect and
produce culture.”31 In Austria, equity is positioned in policy as one of the
most important initiatives in universities. Austria’s most recent University
Act in 2002 outlines the principles of public universities in the country.
Of a list of 12 principles, four relate to equity in a direct way. Number 3
insists on a “diversity of art theory, methods and doctrines.”32 Numbers
9 and 10 direct universities to be guided by “equality of the sexes” and
“social opportunity.”33 And Number 12 articulates that universities should
give “special attention to the needs of the handicapped.”34 The essen-
tial tasks of universities soon follow, with “equality of the sexes, and the
advancement of women” as number 9 of the 11 tasks.35 Further direction
in the document requires universities to have a plan for the advancement
of women, to establish “an organizational unit responsible for the co-
ordination of activities relating to equal opportunities, the advancement of
women and gender research.” Performance contracts between universities
and the Ministry include indicators related to gender equity. However, it
is not yet clear if responsibility designated in policy documents renders
all of those who care about equity able to respond. Nor is it clear that
the policy structure prevents those who are disinterested in investing in
equity to respond in a disruptive way. While this disruption may come in
the form of active resistance, it can also be seen in the prioritization of
gender equity as less important than other explicit priorities such as finan-
cial stability, internationalization, research prestige, and global rankings.
The discourses influencing higher education policy and practice empower
those involved to invest in certain values over others. Feminist poststruc-
tural analyses help to illuminate the ways in which gender equity is valued
or obscured in both rhetoric and practice.
Participants’ observations and analyses suggest that some universities
are experiencing a misalignment between the power to affect change,
knowledge related to equity and change efforts, and designated respon-
sibility for addressing this “policy problem.” As such, participants are not
uniform in their beliefs about whether or not the promise of the University
Act is being fulfilled. Austria’s robust policy framework supporting gen-
der equity is necessary but not sufficient to make structural and cultural
change. The power that is embedded in these policies will only be effec-
tive if those designated as institutionally responsible are aligned with the
knowledge and response-ability of those outside the formal policy frame-
work. Resistance, complexity, and redefinitions of equity and equity prac-
tice are sure to continue. We hope change will as well.
Notes
1. UNESCO, World Atlas of Gender Equality in Education.
2. Husu, Interrogating Gender Paradoxes in Academia: Nordic and
European Perspectives.
3. This study was reviewed by The University of Minnesota (Project
Number 1402S48126).
4. Allan, “Feminist Poststructuralism Meets Policy Analysis.”
5. Baxter, Positioning Gender in Discourse: A Feminist Methodology, 6.
6. Allan, “Feminist Poststructuralism Meets Policy Analysis”; Ropers-
Huilman, Feminist Teaching in Theory and Practice: Situating
Power and Knowledge in Poststructural Classrooms; Ropers-
Huilman and Winters, “Feminist Research in Higher Education”;
Weedon, Feminist Practices and Poststructural Theory.
7. Allan, “Feminist Poststructuralism Meets Policy Analysis,” 14–15.
8. Foucault, The History of Sexuality: Volume I: An Introduction, 92.
9. Morley, Organising Feminisms: The Micropolitics of the
Academy, 45.
10. Allan, “Feminist Poststructuralism Meets Policy Analysis,” 15.
11. Ibid., 26.
12. Allan, Iverson, and Ropers-Huilman, Reconstructing Policy in

Higher Education: Feminist Poststructural Perspectives, 239.
13. Allan, “Feminist Poststructuralism Meets Policy Analysis”;

Bensimon and Marshall, “Policy Analysis for Postsecondary
Education: Feminist and Critical Perspectives”; Morley, Organising
Feminisms: The Micropolitics of the Academy; St. Pierre,

“Poststructural Feminism in Education: An Overview.”
14. Ropers-Huilman conducted the interviews during the spring of
2014 with the support of a Fulbright-University of Klagenfurt
Fellowship.
15. O’Meara, “A Career with a View: Agentic Perspectives of Women
Faculty.”
16. European Commission, She Figures: Statistics and Indicators on

Gender Equality in Science.

Organizations.”
18.
Maes, Gvozdanovic, Buitendijk, Hallberg, and Mantilleri,
“Women, Research, and Universities: Excellence Without Gender
Bias,” 3.
19. Danowitz Sagaria, Women, Universities, and Change: Gender
Equality in the European Union and the United States.
20. National Council of the Republic of Austria, Universities Act of
2002, 24.
21. Müller, “Between Change and Resistance: Gender Structures

and Gender Cultures in German Institutions of Higher
Education,” 34.
22. Pechar, “University Autonomy in Austria. HOFO Working Paper
Series: IFF_hofo.05.001”; Pechar and Pellert, “Austrian
Universities Under Pressure from Bologna”; Pellert and Gindl,
“Gender Equity and Higher Education Reform in Austria.”
23. Bendl, Danowitz, and Schmidt, “Recalibrating Management:

Feminist Activism to Achieve Equality in an Evolving
University,” 11.
24. Wroblewski, Implementation of Gender in Science and Research:
The Austrian Case.
25. Rees, “Pushing the gender equality agenda forward in the

European Union,” 9 (italics in original).
26. Sporn, “University Adaptation and Gender Equality: A Case Study
of the Vienna University of Economics and Business
Administration,” 84–85.
27. St. Pierre, “Poststructural Feminism in Education: An Overview,”
493.
28. Park, “Research, Teaching, and Service: Why Shouldn’t Women’s
Work Count?”
29. Morley, Organising Feminisms: The Micropolitics of the Academy,
72.
30. Mills, Discourse, 88.
31. Allan, “Feminist Poststructuralism Meets Policy Analysis,” 30.
32. National Council of the Republic of Austria, Universities Act of

2002, 7.
33. Ibid., 7.
34. Ibid., 7.
35. Ibid., 8.
CHAPTER 10
Generational Dispositions of Women

Faculty: A Critical Examination
Ana M. Martínez Alemán
Despite the fact that women’s entry into the academic profession consti-
tutes the most notable compositional change1 in American higher educa-
tion in the last 30 years, women’s representation continues its sluggish
pace along the unsurprising path of gender inequity. Across many signifi-
cant and salient professional criteria, women faculty continue to be dis-
proportionately underrepresented, while in the ever-expanding academic
underclass of non-tenure track employment, they constitute a growing
majority.2 All indicators suggest that gender inequity endures in the aca-
demic profession, a reality that has now affected generations of academic
women. To better understand gender inequity in the lives of women fac-
ulty at this historic juncture in the history of the profession, a critical
examination can provide us with an explanatory frame.
Guided by larger social and cultural values that have enabled wom-
en’s entry and their progression in a profession traditionally dominated
by men, generations of women faculty now teach, research, advise, and
administrate in institutional cultures changed by waves of feminist disrup-
A.M.M. Alemán (*)

Department of Educational Leadership & Higher Education, Boston College,
Lynch School of Education, Chestnut Hill, MA, USA

216 A.M.M. ALEMÁN
tion and their demands for gender equity. Many college and university
policies now officially factor key gender equity concerns such as childbear-
ing in promotion and tenure assessment; in the reporting of sexual harass-
ment; in salary equity; and in professional mentoring. Still, like many
other organizations, higher education has not shed discriminatory prac-
tices and standards that are especially likely to undermine women faculty’s
advancement. For example, the academic profession demands resolute,
unflagging commitment, and research has shown that many institutional
and professional norms still remain unaffected by the fact that women
faculty are more likely to bear the primary, time-intensive responsibility
for parenting and childcare.3 Recent scholarship validates the claim that
workplace norms, men’s gender roles disposition, and institutional and
national policies like those in the academy can undermine high achieving
women’s professional ascendance.4
In what follows, I employ critical theorists’ reasoning to better under-
stand enduring gender inequity that characterizes the academic profes-
sion in the USA. I use critical analysis to identify structures that produce
and reproduce gender inequity in the academic profession, and present
an illustration of the phenomenon from the viewpoint of senior women
faculty. Senior women faculty can provide unique perspectives on gender
equity in the profession given their generational, historic position. Situated
in the academy during the Second (1960–1980) and Third (1990–for-
ward) “waves” of feminism, these women’s habitus bear the influences
of new epistemological challenges to gender, sex, sexuality; reproduc-
tive rights and legal equality; and work and career gender equality. Over
time, academic women’s habitus reflect Second Wave impulses that called
workplace gender norms into question, especially regarding family life
and reproductive rights, as well as Third Wave feminists’ poststructural-
ist appraisal of gender, sexuality, and racial/ethnic identity.5 Throughout
these periods, women faculty were shaped by ongoing contestations of
gender within the academic profession, and especially within their par-
ticular disciplines. For example, within the humanities, Queer Theory
emerged as a point of gender contestation; political scientists sought to
expand the view of leadership as a gendered position; and social psycholo-
gists interrogated the intersections of gender and racial/ethnic identity
formation. In sum, senior women faculty today embody an historic posi-
tion in the academic profession that can inform a critical assessment of
gender therein.
GENERATIONAL DISPOSITIONS OF WOMEN FACULTY: A CRITICAL... 217
Gender as Regime
What is responsible for the seemingly intractable social and organizational
systems that construct and replicate gender inequity in the academic pro-
fession? How have the professional identities and dispositions of women
faculty been fittingly ordered and defined by these systems? Critical theo-
rists Pierre Bourdieu and Michel Foucault provide reflective propositions
about gender as an organizing and operational principle in society and
within organizations that help explain women’s current status in the aca-
demic profession.
In Homo academicus, Pierre Bourdieu theorized that academic pro-
fessionals are engaged in relationships in which “legitimate membership
and legitimate hierarchy”6 are determined by forms of capital expended,
whether this capital is positional (e.g. academic rank) or intellectual (e.g.
scholarly recognition). Bourdieu posits that the academic professional is
situated in a space by their dispositions (their “habitus”) and capital, and
that this space is structured by a myriad of social and cultural forces. As
individuals who create cultural products (knowledge), Bourdieu later pos-
tulated that academics inhabit a cultural “field”7 in which the production,
circulation and consumption of their products are affected by the hierar-
chies and relations of power within it. All of their embodied and imper-
ceptible capital is used to promote relationships to advance their success.
But as is the case in many social fields, the academic professional navi-
gates in a space characterized by a symbolic order in which gender dif-
ferences appear natural and absolute, and are reproductions of broader
social values, as well as unique productions of the academic field. As a
“field,” the academic profession is a system of relationships that functions
according to the profession’s historic logic and gendered rules of opera-
tion. The academic field is a competitive system in which power is used
to legitimize and devalue professionals.8 “Masculine domination”9 is the
organizing principle of this field, and as such, institutions (colleges and
universities) are structured so that gender inequality is conventional and
consented, and fundamental to habitus. The academic professional conse-
quently engages in university relationships and with university structures
that are formed by gendered habitus in which inequality is unconscious
and routine. Colleges and universities will reproduce gender inequality by
resisting the interruption of customary male privilege in the academic pro-
fession, and the progress that women do make in the institution obscures
the structural durability of the symbolic order, i.e. gender inequality. Thus,
218 A.M.M. ALEMÁN
despite the fact that some women “make it,” the organizational structures
and expectations of institutions of higher education constrain others from
a clear path to equity. As exemplified by feminist disruptions in the last
decades of the twentieth century such as flexible tenure clocks to offset
women’s maternity, change to the gendered habitus in the academy is
possible, but it is simply a modification that hides tenacious underlying
gender inequality.10
In sum, academic faculty operate in “fields” or organizations shaped
by gendered habitus and in which forms of capital are components in a
hierarchy of gender in which masculinity dominates. As a result, orga-
nizational life in the academy is a function of “gendered ways of acting
and being.”11 Professional experiences, identity and ambitions will be a
reflection of the encounters between individual habitus and the gendered
habitus of the organization. Faculty women and men will be positioned
in the college or university by their relationships within the organization,
their own habitus, and their positional and intellectual capital. Faculty’s
positions in the academic “field” are the outcomes of habitus—theirs and
other institutional members’—and their positions will be marked by the
hierarchical nature of the profession and the institution, a hierarchy of
position that includes gender, race, ethnicity and other social positions.
The relations of power that exist within and across positions will further
determine the actions which are acceptable, tolerable, pioneering, and
confrontational. Faculty attitudes and behaviors will be a corollary of the
power relations in the academic “field.”
The symbolic order of gender inequality proposed by Bourdieu can
also be understood as a “regime of truth”12 that arranges society and its
institutions. A society’s and an institution’s “general politics” are the dis-
courses that are deemed acceptable and that regulate truth.13 As a regu-
latory politics, regimes employ authorized “mechanisms,” “techniques,”
and “procedures”14 to assess truth and determine the status of individuals
who can make determinations about what is or isn’t true. Thus, in a soci-
ety in which gender is regulatory and operational, a “gender regime”15
exists to configure how it will order relations, determine procedures, and
award status and forms of power in an institution. Organizational relations
will reflect this gender order and the many forms of gender politics outside
the institution. The gender truths of the “regime” will be c onnected in “a
circular relation to systems of power”16 that validate, produce and repro-
duce these truths. These systems can maintain, encourage and transmit
gender truths. Disrupting the regime will require “detaching the power
of truth”17—in this case, the power of gender inequality—from “mecha-

nisms,” “techniques,” and “procedures” that reproduce gender power—
in this case, masculine domination. Women’s positions and status in the
academic profession, then, are functions of a gender discourse and the sys-
tems, operations, and rules that it employs. (See also Chapter 5 by Susan
Iverson and Elizabeth Allan regarding the role of discourse and policy.)
Gender Discourse and the Codification

of the Academic Profession
In an essay on the impact of corporatization on faculty women’s experi-

ences in the American academy, I asserted that many of the “mechanisms,”
“techniques,” and “procedures” that enable and perpetuate gender
inequality in the academic profession can be linked to the revival and revi-
talization of gender discourse in the academy.18 I reasoned that sexism
and gender inequity in the academy have been “rebooted” by discursive
masculinity that directs managerial practices in the corporate university.19
In higher education today, discursive masculinity and corporatization exist
in a “mutually dependent relationship” that governs academic life.20 As
discourse, masculinity orders and structures academic life in ways that can
critically explain and help us make sense of (for example) women’s lack of
generational advancement in the profession. (See for example, Chapter 3
in this volume by Tehmina Khwaja on presidential discourse.)
Amy Scott Metcalf and Sheila Slaughter earlier alluded to this phenom-
enon in their examination of the differential effects of academic capitalism
on men and women faculty, noting that academic capitalism’s principles
and codes of behavior make gender equity unattainable.21 Discursively
masculine, academic capitalism asserts a system of status-seeking and
professional pecking order that can hinder and obstruct career advance-
ment among women faculty. Thus, the generations of women faculty
now at work in colleges and universities perform within organizations in
which gender norms are salient and gender inequality is sustained. In the
American academy, discursive masculinity, revived by the late twentieth-
century corporatization of the university, circulates through its mana-
gerial practices. As discourse, masculinity contrives managerial practices
(Foucault’s “mechanisms,” “techniques,” and “procedures”) that order
faculty work in such a way that women’s professional advancement can
be frustrated. In the corporate university, faculty work is schematized by
managerial practices fashioned by masculist principles.22
220 A.M.M. ALEMÁN
As Joan Acker has pointed out, organizations governed by discursive

masculinity regulate women’s professional experiences through the impo-
sition of practices that are dictated by and reinforce gender norms.23 These
norms often sway decision-making, determine access to institutional capi-
tal and rewards and establish the standards and rules for securing pro-
fessional esteem.24 These discursive principles dictate the standardization
of productivity and create a hierarchy of production that increases the
value of competition between faculty members; reinforces gendered wage
inequality; exacerbates the gendered ghettoization of relational work; and
strengthens masculinist career-life orthodoxy. In the university, discursive
masculinity scaffolds and boosts the value of objectivity and objective met-
rics, efficient and profitable work and operational rationality and homo-
sociality.25 In the managerial university, an “audit culture”26 that reveres
time spent producing research and acquiring grants often compels women
faculty to conceal their family commitments and promotes the develop-
ment of “imposter” professional identities among young women faculty.
Given its inefficient and subjective character, relational and commu-
nal work is discursively feminized and is accordingly devalued. Relational
work such as teaching, advising, and mentoring is difficult and too time-
consuming to measure in the economy of academic productivity.27 Despite
being understood as necessary for the institution, feminized work (advis-
ing, teaching, mentorship, and mid-level administration) is subordinate
to research production and does not receive academic prestige that is
assigned compensatory value.28 As feminized work, advising, teaching and
mentoring is “emotional labor” that is not believed to require valued skills
and is inadequately rewarded.29 As a result, the standards and assump-
tions established by discursive masculinity through managerial metrics cre-
ate a gendered binary of academic work in that “men’s work” produces
“market-valued knowledge” and “women’s work” generates “symbolic
knowledge” through teaching.30 But unlike male faculty, women faculty
must perform well in and meet (or exceed) the standards of each sphere of
the gendered binary of academic work.
Performing (and performing well) in both spheres of this gendered
binary has consequences for women faculty largely because the spheres
are incompatible and place competing demands on faculty time and
attention.31 This is certainly the case for senior women faculty. As Stephen
Porter has surmised, though men and women faculty perform institutional
service at similar rates, unlike male faculty, women’s service commitments
are very time-intensive and likely affect time dedicated to their research
production.32 Generally, women faculty spend eight more hours a week

on teaching and performing these gendered service duties (e.g. advising,
program and department administration.) than do men.33 A “professional
yoke that is discursively masculine and enforced by managerial regulation
in the university,”34 teaching and service disproportionately leech women
faculty’s time and energy. Factor in the number of hours that many women
faculty dedicate to home/personal responsibilities and childcare, and we
can see how the gender regime of academic life can torpedo women’s aca-
demic careers. Women faculty with children perform childcare and home
obligations using far more hours than male faculty,35 and not surprisingly,
faculty mothers dedicate fewer hours per week than men do to research
and scholarly production.36 Consequently, success in merit based profes-
sional systems governed by a gender regime that rewards research over
service has tangible consequences for women faculty such as delay in pro-
motion and tenure that in turn leads to lower salaries.37 For example, in
doctoral granting institutions where research is given primacy, full-time
faculty women’s average salary is 78.3 % of faculty men’s.38 Across gen-
erations of faculty women, we see faculty women’s average salaries as a
percentage of faculty men’s is higher at the entry positions of untenured
assistant professors and decreases up through the tenured ranks of associ-
ate and full professor.39 Across all ranks, women faculty’s average salary
is 83 % that of men’s.40 Women continue to earn less than men across all
ranks and institutional types, but it is at the highest levels—at the full pro-
fessor rank and at research institutions—that the disparity is the greatest.41
Women faculty often find themselves, more frequently than their male
counterparts, engaging in what Joan Eveline has referred to as the “glue
work”42 of the institution, those services that support students and fac-
ulty. As “institutional housekeeping,”43 these accommodating and most
often “invisible”44 tasks detract from women faculty’s time, attention,
and energy, and are not conferred the same literal (salary, merit raises,
promotion) and symbolic (professional status) rewards as research and
grants-getting.45 Tenured women faculty actively engaged in “glue work”
and “institutional housekeeping” may find their professional advance-
ment stalled. Women continue to be awarded tenure at lower rates than
men46 and though the “rank deficit”47 for women is slowly narrowing,
later achievement of career milestones typifies women faculty’s sluggish
career advancement.48 Women’s promotion to full professor, for example,
is compromised by the demands of “glue work” that detract from ten-
ured women faculty’s dedication to research, i.e. the production of the
222 A.M.M. ALEMÁN
intellectual capital most valued and rewarded.49 However, despite the fact
that women faculty overall do dedicate more of their time to teaching than
their male peers and spend less time on research production, women have
narrowed the gender gap in research output.50 Interestingly, data suggest
that since 1972, women faculty have lessened their “emphasis on teach-
ing”51 and increased research production. Data show that though there
exists a gap between men’s and women’s publication rates across institu-
tional types and disciplines, this gap has narrowed.52 But this perhaps may
be an artifact of an era that has seen an increase in faculty publication activ-
ity overall but especially among newer tenure track faculty.53 As Schuster
and Finkelstein report, publication activity increase since 1969 extends
beyond the research universities and to other four-year institutions.54
In sum, the durability and rebooting of gender as a regime continues
to support and reinforce gender norms that frustrate and impede gender
equity in the academic profession. Despite historic feminist disruption and
interruption of gender as a regime of truth in the academic profession,
disengaging from the profession’s (and institutional) gendered habitus
remains a challenge for women. Yet, academic women do engage with
the profession’s gender regime to achieve and advance in the profession.
Across their careers, women faculty wrestle with the discursive predica-
ments of the profession, managing their careers guided by their individual
habitus.
Individual habitus sways faculty women’s decision-making, actions and
judgment throughout their careers, reflecting their historical and genera-
tional positions. These generational locations are testaments to their racial
and ethnic identities, their social and economic class geographies, their
sexualities and the myriad of ways in which self-authorship reflects time,
place and bearings. The ways in which individual habitus undertakes the
profession’s gendered habitus will be marked by these dispositions.
A Generational View of Gender Regimes

in the Academic Profession
In a recent exploratory study55 on women faculty born between 1946

and 1964, a colleague and I concluded that this “Boomer” generation
of women faculty exhibited generational dispositions best characterized
as “pathfinders.”56 In this study, a dozen tenured women faculty from a
variety of disciplines and institutional types participated in lengthy semi-
structured interviews to discuss their careers as academic professionals,
keeping in mind their historical and gendered positions in the academic

profession. Currently in “senior “positions, whether by academic title or
years of service, these Boomer women faculty outnumber the Gen X gen-
eration57 and have been responsible for the feminization of the academic
profession. Reading the arcs of their professional careers critically, we can
see how the gender regimes of the academic profession and institutions
impacted their individual dispositions, dispositions informed by genera-
tional habitus.
As a generation of women who as girls were schooled in a variety of
regional contexts in the USA, the Boomer women faculty in our study
experienced gender regimes as young students. Many followed the tacit
rules of the gender order of schooling, while others either pragmatically or
deliberately contested this regulation. As girls educated before the enact-
ment of gender equity legislation and reformation, Boomer women aca-
demics rose to adulthood from relatively uninterrupted gender regimes
and entered an academic profession in which the social, cultural and philo-
sophical forces were disturbing disciplinary paradigms, professional stan-
dards, and cultural production.
A generation forged by the gender regimes of post-World War II social
forces, the counter-revolution of the 1960s, and the forces of corpora-
tization and privatization of the late twentieth century, Boomer faculty
women have “embodied the historical structures of the masculine order”58
in which discursive masculinity prevails. Yet, this is a generation whose
habitus is decidedly informed by feminism’s Second Wave contestations
of gender regimes and consequently, they have intersected with the “aca-
demic field” or organizational life in the academy in ways that reflect that
very generational position. By virtue of disciplinary affiliation, race, and
other social identities, Boomer women are academic professionals whose
relations in the academic field of cultural production mark them as path-
finders in a gender regime—not “pioneers,” not “pathtakers.”59 Unlike
“pioneers” and “pathtakers,” Boomer women as “pathfinders” transform
the academic profession in some way, whether disciplinarily or culturally.
As “pathfinders,” the Boomer women in our study provided us with
counter-narratives to masculist discourse. They engaged in counter-
storytelling about the gender regime they experienced in the academic
field and how their responses reflected a habitus informed by varying
modes of feminist consciousness. Employed to reveal and examine the
narratives of privilege in habitus, counter-narratives give a view of the rela-
tions of power and agency in a field. Used by scholars to uncover how race
224 A.M.M. ALEMÁN
is experienced in education,60 for example, the counter-narrative reports

how subjugated communities enact agency and disturb norms. In the case
of Boomer women faculty, counter-narratives were contestations of aca-
demia’s gender regime, pure and simple. Boomer women, undoubtedly as
a consequence of their generational habitus, held counter-narratives about
professional identity and the hierarchy of professional capital.
Professional Identity As academics, these Boomer women claimed for

themselves a profession that was discursively antagonist to their gendered
positions. Women as reasoned and rational agents interested in and capa-
ble of intellectual production faced a myriad of gender challenges.
The Boomer women in our study described their professional identi-

ties as anchored to a desire to engage with ideas. Living an “intellectual
life” was the cornerstone of their identities as academic professionals. On
the surface, this is not surprising, given that the academic profession is
fundamentally a life dedicated to the pursuit of knowledge, its examina-
tion, its development, and its circulation. But as appropriated by women,
holding and claiming custody of the commitment to engaging with ideas
and producing knowledge contests an essential misogyny of the gender
regime of the profession.
For women to live an intellectual life, to investigate and author knowl-
edge claims amounts to a critical rejection of a gender regime rooted in
Aristotelian misogyny and fostered by social and cultural norms that were
relatively uncontested until feminism’s late-twentieth-century condemna-
tions. Boomer women faculty entered the academy because of the pleasure
they took in ideas, in writing about ideas, in in the exploration of ideas.
Such a disposition located them in a profession historically regulated by
gender hierarchies and discursive masculinity that had for most of its his-
tory gone undisturbed. As “pathfinders,” these Boomers claimed a career
in intellectual inquiry as their prerogative. Across a variety of disciplines,
some were motivated by feminist politics and epistemologies; some were
galvanized by the prospect that they—as women—could contribute to
knowledge. In choosing an academic career, these Boomers asserted their
right to intellectual agency and capital, and more importantly, to a status
imbued with public authority. In gender regimes, women’s claim to public
authority subverts historic relations of power in Western cultures. In the
academic profession, public authority had historically been the privilege
of men. Boomer women’s claim to the academic profession unsettled aca-
demic men’s entitlement to the intellectual life and to the power to shape
culture. And yet, many Boomer women still experienced insecurity, self-
doubt and anxiety about belonging in the profession, perhaps a function
of undisturbed gender regimes within and outside of it.
As academic professionals, faculty create cultural products in a field of
hierarchical relations.61 Through hierarchical relations, faculty produce,
circulate and consume ideas and it is through this that the academic gains
status and positional authority. Boomers’ production and circulation of
intellectual capital was influenced in one way or another by feminist poli-
tics and consciousness. These Boomer women were influenced by feminist
epistemologies that informed their disciplinary paradigms and motivated
their professional bearing. The varying degrees and forms of feminist con-
sciousness among the Boomer faculty fostered direct and indirect defiance
of the profession’s gender norms and restrictions. Among these Boomer
women faculty, feminist consciousness manifested epistemologically as well
as politically. For some women, feminist epistemologies informed their
disciplinary inquiry in the humanities, social sciences and sciences. For
others, feminism informed their service to their institutions and profes-
sional organizations, their challenges to institutional policies (e.g. tenure
clock), and their mentorship of junior women faculty. For many Boomer
women, feminist epistemologies very clearly directed or redirected their
engagement with ideas—how, what or who they studied—while for oth-
ers, feminist epistemologies reframed their understanding of their posi-
tions in the academy’s gender regime.
Many Boomer women employed feminist principles to counter the
profession’s gender regime throughout the stages of their careers. For
these Boomers, their feminism was a consciously held counter-narrative
directed at the gender regime in the profession. Though all these Boomers
now identified as holding feminist principles and ideals, many described
their identities as “feminists” as a consciousness that evolved as they
matured intellectually and as professionals. None spoke of feminism as
a disadvantage or hindrance. Whether deployed as indirect responses to
gender antagonism, or as undisguised counterclaims to gender hierarchies,
Boomers asserted feminist ethics and ideas. As graduate students, these
Boomers invoked feminist attitudes when handling their own gender vic-
timization in the 1970s and 1980s. They used feminist strategies to man-
age incidents of sexual harassment in graduate school. As faculty, Boomers
utilized feminist politics to challenge institutional policies and practices
blind to race and ethnicity, sexuality and other marginalized identities.
226 A.M.M. ALEMÁN
Boomers committed to feminist pedagogies to better their teaching and

mentoring of students, despite the lack of institutional support and pres-
tige for teaching and advising. As a vocational undertaking, their com-
mitment to these pedagogies was a direct challenge to the academic
profession’s norms.
Boomers claimed and developed their professional identities in
Bourdieu’s academic field,62 a habitus informed by traditional gender
regimes in which all forms of positional and intellectual capital are reg-
ulated by inequality. Yet, Boomers appear to have engaged in critical
action in order to develop their professional identities. In many ways,
their claims on the academy are expressions of the transformation critical
theorists deem necessary for structural change. In Foucault’s thinking,
the key to effect social justice lies in our ability to disengage “the power
of truth from the forms of hegemony (social, economic, and capital)
within which it operates.”63 Boomer women faculty, it appears, are a
generation of women who found ways—albeit incompletely—to loosen
the profession’s hegemonic claims on their identity and on the value of
teaching.
Hierarchy of Professional Capital Unlike recent generations of women fac-

ulty, these Boomer women conceptualize their intellectual production not
in terms fully resonant with the corporate university and academic capital-
ism. These Boomer women presented a narrative of cultural production
in which teaching and mentoring were central, a narrative now challenged
by neoliberalism and academic capitalism within the profession. Counter-
normative in nature, teaching and mentoring as a form of cultural produc-
tion was not understood by Boomers as contradictory to their professional
identities. On the contrary, Boomer women gave professional value to
teaching and mentoring despite knowing that in the profession’s economy
of production, these two relational and highly feminized duties are not
privileged and hold secondary capital value. Many Boomers recognized
that elevating teaching and mentoring in the hierarchy of production was
a direct consequence of the integration of feminist principles and values
in their professional identities. For some, this limited their professional
promotion beyond the rank of associate; others moved to institutions with
lower production demands. Some chose to remain associate professor and
focus on teaching and the circulation of ideas in the classroom. Those who
were promoted to associate and a few to full professor somehow managed
to meet publication, teaching and service expectations.
Boomer women’s narratives of negotiating and manipulating the pro-

fession’s gender regime and institutional field of power relations presented
tales of exhaustion and exhilaration, achievement and loss, engagement
and withdrawal. In other words, though guided and animated by feminist
politics and social change, Boomer women did not always challenge the
academy’s regime of gender, choosing instead to disassociate from profes-
sional and institutional demands. Some Boomers rejected the gendered
field of production, circulation and consumption by separating from insti-
tutional culture and performing their academic identities independent of
the regime. As regime dissidents, they moved to institutions that could
better match their professional identities; freed themselves from activities
of academic capitalism and intellectual production, recognizing that their
career advancement would be harmed. These Boomers were at ease with
the decision to advance no further in the profession’s hierarchy.
For those Boomers who engaged the regime of gender in the academy,
their primary objective was to connect feminist principles to power, or
to unhinge “the power of truth”64 in the academic profession from its
hegemonic gender regime. These Boomers acted as critical agents, prag-
matically engaging in the field of power relations in order to have a say
in institutional policies and practices. Boomers considered tenure as the
position in the academic field that would enable them to disrupt power
relations in their departments and institutions. These Boomers used their
pre-tenure positions to engage with power relations, and to access the
tangible and intangible capital that could be used to further relations that
would, in turn, foster their advancement. Pragmatic and subversive, these
Boomers engaged with the gender regime of the profession as cultural
agents aiming to execute critical change.
As critical agents, Boomers leveraged tenure to change the academy’s
gendered habitus. Their very presence in the academic field and the
changes they brought to it disrupted practices and policies, and norms and
assumptions about the role of women as intellectuals. As pathfinders, they
mapped and surveyed the academic profession’s gender regime for new
generations of women faculty. Though they changed some of the regime’s
terrain, Boomer women did not revolutionize or undo the regime com-
pletely. As Bourdieu noted in Masculine Domination, feminism is respon-
sible for unsettling male privilege in the academic field and these Boomers
appear to have employed feminism toward that end. Yet, as Bourdieu also
noted, changes brought to habitus by feminism may also “conceal perma-
nent features”65 of gender regimes, especially, the structure of “gaps”66
228 A.M.M. ALEMÁN
between men and women. For Boomer women faculty in our study, the
most conspicuous gap occurs at the promotion to full professor.
Boomers assessed this gap as a function of the gender regime that regu-
lates advancement by means of a hierarchy of production that is often
incompatible with women’s gender roles in the academic profession.
According to Boomers, the corporatization of the university has made
the hierarchy of production more inflexible, slowing women’s advance-
ment. By increasing the value of competition and academic capitalism,
Boomers asserted that the university has reinforced its operational gen-
der regime and consequently, fortified gender inequity. In this operational
scheme, Boomers note that women have lost competitive power as intel-
lectual agents largely because of the decreased value of teaching and ser-
vice. In the corporate university, Boomer women’s positional power in
the academic field—informed by feminism and its veneration of teach-
ing and mentorship—had been weakened. Only women whose habitus
is more coherent with the corporate university’s hierarchy of production
will prevail. According to these Boomer women, the younger generations
of women faculty appear to embody a habitus more consistent with the
demands of production in the corporatized university, and the norms of
the male ideal worker. Nonetheless, Boomer women were quick to point
out that despite the fact that younger women’s productivity is compatible
with the demands of the corporate university, young women faculty must
still operate within a gender regime whose permanence violates previous
feminist modification.
Conclusion
Women faculty have undeniably changed the academic profession in the
last 50 years. A critical examination of a generation of women faculty at
the center of those changes reveals that the Boomer generation’s claim to
an academic identity disrupted the gender regime of the profession, and
that their feminist-informed habitus altered their position in the academic
field. However, the Boomer generation’s alteration of the academic field
and its gender hierarchies is perceived to have been damaged and weak-
ened by the corporatization of the university.
This critical interpretation of Boomer women’s generational positions
in the academic profession puts forward that by their very presence in the
academic field, these faculty women tested the strength of gender regimes
at their institutions and in their disciplines. Boomers’ appropriation of an
academic identity involved both pragmatic adherence to gender expecta-

tions as well as deliberate reconceptualization of gender as a social category
that informed academic identity and academic work. To varying degrees,
the Boomers in our study were agents of gender change. Throughout
their careers, each was able to identify some experiential elements of their
habitus that motivated action that in some way decentered gender power
in the profession. Some Boomers singled out their tenure process and
acquisition as experiences that galvanized their positions on gender ineq-
uity in the academic profession. For example, Boomers who had taken
on administrative positions as department chairs and/or associate deans
pointed to ways in which their positions in the academic field enabled
them to take power away from inequitable gender schemes that had his-
torically defined the culture and appraisal of tenure at their institutions.
Those who had served as department chairs or associate deans claimed
power in the gender regime and used it to pursue change in sexist ten-
ure systems, to varying degrees of success. Unlike the department chairs
in Amy Wharton and Mychel Estevez’s 2014 research,67 these Boomers
did use the lens of gender inequity—some more critically than others—to
assess gender inequality in the professional lives of their faculty. Though,
like department chairs in Wharton and Estevez’s study, our Boomers did
understand women faculty as agents who made choices, they did not
use the lens of “personal responsibility and choice”68—a gender regime
maxim—to understand structural gender inequities affecting their faculty.
Given their generational position, Boomer women faculty have expe-
rienced feminist change in the academy in their own individual ways. As
graduate students, then as early career faculty and now as senior members
of the profession, these Boomers have been impacted by the provocations
that feminism has brought to the academy. Changes in sexual harassment
policies that were absent in their graduate student years now proscribe
their institutional discourses on gender compliance and accountability.
Modifications to both the structural and tacit policies on women’s m aternity
have evolved throughout their professional careers. Many Boomers stipu-
lated that epistemological and pedagogical advances brought to the acad-
emy by feminist academics are testament to their generation’s contribution
to gender equity. However, our Boomers were also very much aware that
much gender inequity is still part of the academic field and that the rise of
managerialism and the corporatization of the academy have reinvigorated
gender inequity. For instance, some Boomers made note of the rise of non-
tenure track faculty (adjuncts) and the corresponding rise in service and
230 A.M.M. ALEMÁN
administrative duties for tenure track faculty. Mid-career women appear to

be shouldering much of that work, amid ever increasing research produc-
tivity demands for promotion. Our Boomers pointed to the move by the
academy toward a market-based mission that won’t give value to teaching,
mentoring and service as the source of what in their minds is a reinforcing
of the gender regime that undermines academic women’s advancement.
Joya Misra and Jennifer Lundquist report that mid-career tenure-track
academic professionals shoulder the heavy lifting of mentoring and advis-
ing in the midst of decreasing numbers of tenure track positions.69 Among
mid-career tenure track faculty, women spend more time mentoring than
men, and faculty of color have the highest rates of advising. As women
move up the ranks, mentoring hours increase, ostensibly taking time that
could be dedicated to advancing their intellectual projects.
Through a critical lens, we are able to see that Boomer women faculty
as individuals and as a generational cohort claimed the academic profes-
sion as their own and in different ways took opportunities to defy, con-
front and provoke change in the profession’s gender regime, e.g. using
tenure as relational and positional power to change sexist policies. It is
also true that among these women Boomers, there was satisfaction that
their “pathfinding” changed the landscape for new generations of women
faculty, but there was skepticism about further advancement of gender
equity in an era of neoliberal influence on the academic profession and
the corporatization of the academic enterprise. Many Boomers wondered
if the improved path to gender equity in the academic profession will be
“taken for granted” and in a perverse turn, dull the desire to continue
the critical work to undo the regime of gender still present in academic
practices and policies. Many of our Boomers were not optimistic, echo-
ing Cathy Trower’s empirical observation that Boomers are more vocal
about professional culture and workplace climate than newer generations
of faculty70 and Mary Ann Mason and associates’ conclusion that senior
faculty—women included—are not considered role models by new gen-
erations of women PhDs.71
All critical considerations of lived phenomena should critique norms,
provide some explanatory analysis and suggest solutions. In the case of gen-
der inequity and gender regimes in the academic profession, these Boomer
women faculty engaged the gender regime and in different ways upset
relations of power that sustain gender inequity in the academic profession.
In a sense, these Boomers were themselves critical actors in the gender
regime, providing some solutions to intractable sexism in the academic
profession. And like critical actors, our Boomers posited that real change
requires a new model of the academic profession that is unhinged from
the gender regime that has been its historic anchor. Boomers rightly noted
that new calls for a reformation of the academic workplace to account for
the realities of dual careers, spouses, parenting, and home obligations in
the professional lives of academic professionals veritably invokes a gender
challenge to the academic profession. In their view, changes in institutional
rewards policies (merit pay, course load allocation, and promotion and ten-
ure) that give empirical value to work mainly performed by women faculty
is another means to further critical gender change in the academy. Across
all the Boomers in the study, however, it was clear that as “pathfinders,”
engaging in the academic field—for better or worse—was, and is, the most
critical and effective means to gender equity in the academic profession.
Notes
of Academic Work and Careers, 49.
2. Curtis, “Persistent Inequity: Gender and Academic Employment.”
Family in the Ivory Tower; Misra, Lundquist, and Templer, “Gender,
Work Time, and Care Responsibilities Among Faculty.”
4. Ely and Rhode, “Women and Leadership: Defining the Challenges.”
5. Marine and Martínez Alemán, “Women Faculty, Professional
Identity and Generational Disposition.”
6. Bourdieu, Homo Academicus, 11.
7. Bourdieu, The Field of Cultural Production, 38.
8. Moi, “Appropriating Bourdieu: Feminist Theory and Pierre
Bourdieu’s Sociology of Culture,” 1021.
9. Bourdieu, Masculine Domination.
10. Ibid., 89–96.
11. Acker, “Gendered Games in Academic Leadership,” 147.
12. Foucault, “The Political Function of the Intellectual,” 12–14.
13. Foucault, The Foucault Reader: An Introduction to Foucault’s
Thought, 11.
14. Foucault, “The Political Function of the Intellectual,” 13.
15. Connell, Gender.
17. Ibid.
232 A.M.M. ALEMÁN
18. Martínez Alemán, “Managerialism as the ‘New’ Discursive

Masculinity in the American University: The Shape of Academic
Life for Women Faculty.”
19. Ibid., 127.
20. Ibid., 111.
21. Metcalf and Slaughter, “The Differential Effects of Academic

Capitalism on Women in the Academy.”

Masculinity in the American University,” 109.

Organizations.”
24. Ibid., 441–64.

Masculinity in the American University,” 111–113.
26. Archer, “Younger Academics: Constructions of ‘Authenticity,’

‘Success,’” and “Professional Identity,” 399.
27. Martínez Alemán, “Faculty Productivity and the Gender

Question.”
28. Ibid., 153.
29. Bellas, “Emotional Labor in Academia: The Case of Professors,”
96–110.
30. Ibid., 151.
31. Ibid., 119.
32. Porter, “A Closer Look at Faculty Service: What Affects

Participation on Committees.”
33. Misra, Lundquist, Holmes, and Agiomavritis. “The Ivory Ceiling
of Service Work.”

Masculinity in the American University,” 119.
Family in the Ivory Tower, 70.
36. Ibid., 70.
37. Krefting, “Intertwined Discourse of Merit and Gender: Evidence
from Academic Employment in the USA.”
38. Thorton, Saranna. It’s Not Over Yet: The Annual Report on the
Economic Status of the Profession, 2010–11.
39. Ibid.
40. Ibid.
41. Curtis, “Persistent Inequity: Gender and Academic Employment.”
42. Eveline, Ivory Basement Leadership: Power and Invisibility in the

Changing University.
43. Bird, Litt, and Wang, “Creating Status of Women Reports:

Institutional Housekeeping as ‘Women’s Work,’” 194.
44. Ibid.
45. Ibid., 201
47.
Schuster and Finklestein, The Academic Profession: The
Restructuring of Academic Work and Careers, 183.
48. Ibid., 184–185.
49. Misra, Lundquist, Holmes, and Agiomavritis, “The Ivory Ceiling
of Service Work.”
50. Ibid., 91–92.
51. Ibid., 91.
52.
Schuster and Finkelstein, The Academic Profession: The
53. Misra, Lundquist, Holmes, and Agiomavritis, “The Ivory Ceiling
of Service Work,” 102.
54.
Schuster and Finkelstein, The Academic Profession: The
55. Marine and Martínez Alemán, “Women Faculty, Professional

Identity and Generational Disposition.”
56. Gumport, Academic Pathfinders: Knowledge Creation and Feminist
Scholarship.

2014-015).
58. Bourdieu, Masculine Domination, 5.
59. Gumport, Academic Pathfinders: Knowledge Creation and Feminist
Scholarship.
60. Solorzano and Yosso, “Critical race methodology: Counter-

storytelling as an analytical framework for education research.”
61. Bourdieu, The Field of Cultural Production.
62. Bourdieu, Homo Academicus.
64. Ibid.
65. Bourdieu, Masculine Domination, 90.
66. Ibid., 91.
234 A.M.M. ALEMÁN
67. Wharton and Estevez. “Department Chairs’ Perspectives on Work,

Family, and Gender: Pathways for Transformation.”
68. Ibid., 147.
69. Misra and Lundquist. “How Midcareer Faculty Members Can

Find Time for Mentoring.”
70. Trower. Success on the Tenure Track: Five Keys to Faculty Job
Satisfaction.
PART III
Students
CHAPTER 11
Trans* College Students: Moving

Beyond Inclusion
Susan B. Marine
Transgeneration, a documentary series shared with the viewing public in

2006, provided a rare and invaluable glimpse into the lives of four trans-
gender college students, their daily lived experiences, challenges, and the
determination required to thrive and survive in four very different insti-
tutional environments.1 Following Raci, Gabbie, T.J., and Lucas through
a labyrinth of family, peer, medical, social and personal encounters was
eye-opening; that these experiences took place nearly exclusively in the
confines of higher education institutions in the early twenty-first century
was nothing short of groundbreaking. At the start of the film, the cam-
era pans to an image of a tall, thin, striking young woman, reclining on
the manicured campus lawn. The young woman is playfully blowing on
a noisemaker, and laughing. She introduces herself: “Hi, I’m Raci! From
the Philippines…here in college, I think people are really mature….I think
they are ‘tranny friendly’2…in college right now, I am not only dealing with
being a transsexual. I am also dealing with my hearing problem, because I
am deaf. So I am coping with a lot…poverty, being a transsexual, and also
the deaf part.” The camera pans to Raci’s modest living arrangements—a
cramped room she shares with her aunt, where she lives, eats, studies, and
S.B. Marine (*)

Higher Education Graduate Program, Merrimack College,
North Andover, MA, USA

238 S.B. MARINE
sleeps. Raci laments her non-traditional college situation, the fact that her
mother is “problem’ing” about money, and that she is facing a great deal
of pressure as a low-income, first generation commuter student with a dis-
ability. She deeply wants to fit in on her sunny California campus, explain-
ing to curious onlookers the presence of the cameras following her around
campus by saying she’s making a documentary about young women in
college, a statement which is only partially true, as the film is really about
transgender college students.
Even though all four individuals persevered admirably throughout the
series, observing their lives left no doubt that the road through college
for those who transgress gender is rocky. A palpable absence of family
and peer support, difficulties accessing appropriate medical care, reticent
administrators, the psychic weight of relentlessly having to choose whether
to come out as trans* to faculty, staff and fellow students: these and other
burdens, navigated thoughtfully but not without cost by the students fea-
tured in the film. Unsurprisingly, and as evidenced in the words of Raci,
the students were living multi-dimensional lives. Their trans*ness was only
one feature of the terrain they were navigating, and as with most students
today, their gender identity was not always the most prominent of their
developmental hurdles.
Still, a decade since the film was made, the question emerges—what has
changed? Given the rapid increase in trans* visibility—the rush of atten-
tion to issues of trans* lives and identities ushered in by the so-called
“transgender tipping point”3 among other popular culture watershed
moments, such as Bruce Jenner’s emergence to live as Caitlyn Jenner,4
what is different now? Is progress truly happening to reduce the barriers
encountered by the four intrepid travelers featured in Transgeneration?
Are trans* individuals taking their rightful place in colleges and universi-
ties with more comfort, more regularity, more agency? And if not, why
not? Even today, are trans* students still considered an anomaly, an excep-
tion, and treated accordingly? Perhaps the most pressing question: what
might it require, in terms of resources, strategies, and political will, to
move institutions of higher education beyond simple inclusion of trans*
students toward full participation, toward complete and seamless owner-
ship of the collegiate experience?
In this chapter, I examine the current state of research about trans*
students’ experiences, along with what is known about the practices and
policies that appear to undergird their support and flourishing, and the
deleterious effects of genderism5 that delimits their opportunities for full
TRANS* COLLEGE STUDENTS: MOVING BEYOND INCLUSION 239
integration in higher education. I propose important questions central to

the reformation of genderism in its most problematic manifestation: the
binary restriction of campus spaces. I use these questions to foreground
the urgency of deconstructing how genderist practice in campus spaces
prevents full ownership of the college experience by trans* students, and
thus is a moral imperative—particularly for student affairs practitioners—
to address. A critical exploration of gender in higher education demands
that we broaden our thinking beyond the binary to encompass the full
range of gendered human experience. Critical perspectives call for educa-
tors to deeply interrogate gender roles and schemas that impact those who
identify as men and women; trans* people’s experiences similarly invite a
commitment to excavating the meaning of these categories, and to come
to terms with their ultimate instability.
Trans* Students: What Do We Know?

The presence of trans* students of all genders is arguably proliferating in
higher education.6 As students who transgress the gender binary move
into higher education in increasing numbers, much has been made of ways
to build environments that include these students, typically through mod-
est adaptations of existing campus spaces and policies.7 In recent years,
scholars have called for a reorientation of campus practice and policy to
recenter trans* students’ needs and concerns8 and to envision postsecond-
ary education in a way that resists the burdensome and limiting practice
of genderism,9 the systematic and oppressive over-reliance on the gender
binary in both practice and policy. Writing about genderism, Darryl Hill
stated,
It is the system of beliefs that reinforces a negative evaluation based on

gender nonconformity or an incongruence between sex and gender. It is the
cultural notion that gender is an important basis by which to judge people
and that nonbinary genders are anomalies. As such, transgender people are
subordinated to nontransgender people as less normal and worthy.10
Hill’s appraisal, while resonant with the experiences of many who identify
as trans*, could be misread as a reification of the “natural order” of things.
Instead, the illogic of this perspective – and the speciousness of a belief in
two polar opposite genders – should lead to scrutiny of policies and prac-
tices that reinforce this delusion.
240 S.B. MARINE
In order to continue the slow march of progress in transforming post-

secondary education’s over-reliance on genderism, I argue it is essential to
ground the understanding of its effects in the lived experience of trans*
students, while also highlighting the resiliencies and coping mechanisms
they draw upon to manage it. Genderism functions stealthily within higher
education, typically posited as “the way we’ve always done things,” and
could be mistakenly believed to be an innocuous stance that serves the
vast majority of students well. Standing back from these practices to criti-
cally assess their impact in the lives of trans* students (and the ways they
impact trans* student retention and persistence) is, thus, a crucial exercise
for critical scholars and practitioners alike.
Even though early literature on trans* students heavily relied upon
informal observation and “anec-data” to drive practice recommendations,
in recent years, trans* scholars of higher education and their allies have
attended to documenting first-person narratives of trans* students in a
more holistic and systematic fashion. These narratives provide deep insight
into the tribulations that continue to confront trans* students in US
higher education, and the skills they draw upon to resist and endure them.
Brent Bilodeau authored one of the first studies of transgender student
experiences in higher education, conducting a close analysis of two stu-
dents’ experiences at a large Midwestern university.11 Nick and Jordan, the
participants in Bilodeau’s study, described a gradual process of becoming
aware of their transgender identity, navigating their identities with fam-
ily members, friends, and intimate partners, and aligning themselves with
others in a transgender community. Bilodeau recognized and named these
milestones as being reminiscent of Anthony D’Augelli’s lifespan model
of sexual orientation identity development.12 Even though the process
departed somewhat from the stages of emergence for those coming to
terms with being lesbian, gay, or bisexual, there was nonetheless some
resonance for Nick and Jordan who were skillfully asserting their identities
in the midst of both interpersonal and institutional resistance. Most signif-
icantly, Bilodeau noticed and named the “ways in which higher education
colludes with binary gender systems to reinforce gender oppression.”13
For example, he identified the ways that faculty often negate, ignore, or
belittle trans* students’ requests to use their reclaimed names and pro-
nouns, as well as when housing administrators insist on placing trans*
students in residence hall rooms that correspond to their assigned, rather
than authentic, genders. Signaling the deleterious effects of genderism,
Bilodeau’s work presciently foretold the persistent impact that such poli-
cies and practices have on the lives of trans* students, particularly those
who identify outside of the gender binary.
The depth offered in Bilodeau’s study could arguably oversimplify
one’s understanding of trans* students, in the absence of breadth. In an
early, much larger-scale data collection effort, Jeffrey McKinney collected
qualitative narratives from 75 transgender graduate and undergraduate
students at 61 two and four-year public and private institutions about
their experiences on campus.14 Across a wide variety of institutional types
and locations, data indicated that students felt that faculty were not well-
educated about transgender issues, and that campus programming, coun-
seling, and other resources devoted to trans* issues were insufficient.
Graduate students, additionally, noted a lack of essential healthcare and
group and individual counseling support. Signaling the often lamented
disconnectedness experienced by trans* people within what has been
termed the “LGBTfakeT” movement,15 campus LGBTQ groups were
noted as overtly inhospitable to trans* students, with one respondent
opining that “our existence is buried in the LGBT group. Trans people
are acutely aware of this. I would say this really hampers the accessibility of
it.”16 Here, genderism operates subtly to privilege the experiences of gay
and lesbian people—while not heterosexual, these are individuals occupy-
ing identities on the binary, attracted to others living on the binary. This
privileging creates a hierarchy where trans* students experience them-
selves as less welcome and desirable.
In negotiating these deficits in the campus landscape, other literature
mines the ways trans* students are acutely cognizant of the manner in
which they are being perceived and responded to by their peers, in keep-
ing with normal developmental concerns of late adolescence. Rob Pusch’s
work, engaging the online activity of 13 trans-identified college youth and
the means by which they made meaning of the reactions of those they
were out to as transgender, sheds light on the benefits and perils of out-
ness.17 Even though very little of Pusch’s study entailed reactions directly
relating to college life, the energy and time invested in negotiating oth-
ers’ reactions to one’s transness, and specifically managing the emotional
and cognitive fallout of others’ reactions, was evident in their narratives,
suggesting that the self-identification, transition, and/or embodiment

processes for trans* students are imbued with complexity, and unquestion-
ably require additional time and energy, inevitably siphoned away from
studies or co-curricular pursuits. Students’ psychosocial development can
242 S.B. MARINE
be further complicated by sensing that one is different, requiring addi-

tional energy to navigate and manage others’ reactions to this difference.
Ultimately, academic pursuits are the central aim of the college experi-
ence. Yet research has also revealed that the classroom can be a difficult
place for trans* students. Jonathan Pryor studied the experiences of five
transgender students from a large public institution in Midwest USA.18 He
found that trans* students made complex and deeply deliberate decisions
about coming out as trans in the classroom, that they encountered vary-
ing levels of (dis)respect for their identities from instructors and peers, and
felt forced to make curricular choices—such as avoiding language courses
where gender was emphasized in the language’s construction—in order
to minimize the likelihood of being misgendered. Despite this, trans* stu-
dents often pushed forward, as noted by one participant in Pryor’s study:
Navigating the classroom environment can make you “paranoid” and

“hyper aware” of others’ perceptions, she suggested. She went on to say,
“you eventually have to stop… that’s an essential part of learning how to
be comfortable to yourself and not worrying about what they’re going to
think.”19
Genderism flourishes in academic spaces when faculty have no cause or

motivation to consider that their students may identify differently than
they present, or that they may need to educate themselves about their
responsibilities to ask about pronouns, preferred names, or to use inclusive
language in classroom examples or discussion.
Arguably, the classroom space can be challenging for students of all gen-
der identities. Thus, it is important to study trans* students’ experiences
alongside those of their cisgender peers, as in the work of John Dugan,
Michelle Kusel, and Dawn Simounet.20 Ninety-one self-identifying trans-
gender students were compared with a similarly sized sample of LGB cis-
gender and heterosexual peers on domains of campus climate, sense of
belonging, engagement, sociocultural conversations with peers, leadership
efficacy, and complex cognitive skills. Notably, findings revealed that trans-
gender students of differing gender identities have more in common with
one another than they have differences; however, those born as male but
now identifying as female exhibited lower leadership capacity and efficacy,
and attainment of leadership roles than those now identifying as male,
perhaps indicative of attempts to conform to female gender roles (and
as a by-product of the attendant loss of male privilege). Transfeminine
spectrum students also reported that they benefited from less faculty men-
toring than their peers who identified as male, also suggesting that moving
away from masculinity carries no social sanction or reward.
In terms of comparison with their cisgender and LGB-identified peers,
transgender students experienced “more frequent encounters with harass-
ment and discrimination, as well as a lower sense of belonging,” even
though they sought out and took part in high engagement activities
(community service, living-learning programs, faculty research) at the
same rates as their non-trans* peers.21 Transgender students exhibited
lower gains in complex cognitive skill development, attributed to a lack
of self-confidence by the researchers who pointed out that transgender
students are regularly admonished that they are wrong about who they
are and how they make meaning of their own lives. Capacity for socially
responsible leadership, also diminished in the transgender student sample,
was speculated to be attributable to the internal values struggles (and the
questionable relevance of concepts like social justice) when encountered
by students attempting to enact their authentic gender identities in the
face of a hostile social climate.22
These scholars’ work gestures to the reality that feeling welcome on
one’s campus is a loaded proposition at best for trans* students, and in
fact, one’s sense of comfort and safety is often conspicuously absent. In the
largest study to date of the daily realities of being gender non-conforming
on campus, conducted by CampusPride in the Spring of 2009, 695 (14 %
of the roughly 5,000 in the survey’s total sample) students, faculty and
staff who identified outside of the gender binary (in other words, identi-
fied as being on the transmasculine spectrum, on the transfeminine spec-
trum, or as otherwise gender non-conforming) provided a glimpse of the
harms they endured. Of those who identified as transmasculine, 39 % had
experienced harassment; 38 % of transfeminine respondents had, and 31 %
of those who were gender non-conforming in other ways had experienced
harassment, ranging from being deliberately left out or excluded or being
singled out as a resident authority, to being stared at, being targets of
graffiti, being harassed in the context of a class, and being intimidated or
bullied. Fears of social isolation, fearing the possibility of receiving a poor
grade in a course, or being afraid for one’s safety were the most commonly
reported harms. Gender non-conforming respondents of color in this sur-
vey were significantly more likely to experience harassment than their peers
who were not gender non-conforming, and both groups were more likely
244 S.B. MARINE
to experience harassment than white respondents of all gender identities.

Similarly, those who identified as transgender or gender non-conforming
“were more likely to seriously consider leaving their institution, avoiding
LGBTQQ-specific areas of campus, fearing for their physical safety due to
gender identity, and avoiding disclosure of gender identity due to intimi-
dation and fear of negative consequences.”23
Seeking to go deeper into the question of “what’s hard about being
trans* in college,” D. Chase Catalano’s study of 25 trans* men attending
colleges and universities in New England explored, among other ques-
tions, what challenges were faced by these men, and how they could draw
upon their experiences to advise other trans* men about being successful
in college.24 What supports, experiences, and advice would they offer to
bolster their brothers’ success? Tellingly, the “challenges” list rang famil-
iar: Lack of appropriate facilities and accommodations, unclear policies
regarding essential life management practices such as name changes on
documents, the absence of institutional support to navigate the systems
maze, all compounded by the strain of coming out as trans* in the midst
of these other stressors. And even though the men in Catalano’s study
did indeed marshal some campus resources in the service of their own
survival, these were anything but exemplary: a single supportive faculty
or staff member, or the absence of overt hostility, was lauded as impor-
tant. To a man, their expectations were depressingly, resolutely low. They
shared stories of being tokenized, and settling for being asked demeaning
questions—such as being asked to serve as the “designated expert,”25 to
educate cisgender peers and even professional staff as part of the role of
being trans on campus. Genderism manifested here as the belief that being
different means taking on the role of teacher—a common response to the
lamentably unanswerable refrain of W.E.B. Dubois, “how does it feel to
be a problem?”26
On a more positive note, the students in Catalano’s study exhibited
a high degree of self-reliance for survival, and passed this on to other
trans* men, urging one another to find allies, participate in self-advo-
cacy, and seek out administrators who could act as allies.27 Catalano
concluded the study by urging professionals invested in developing
authentic allyship to reconsider the essential nature of Barbara Love’s
notion of liberatory consciousness,28 practicing awareness, analysis,
action and accountability toward the improvement of life chances for
trans* students in college.29
A New Frame: Resilience and Kinship
The empirical work of the last decade paints a bleak picture of trans*
student experiences in college, marked as they appear to be by encoun-
ters with indifferent or hostile peers, faculty, or staff mentors, facilities
ill-designed to accommodate the unique needs of trans* students, and
institutional policies that delimit students’ access to compassionate care.
Yet, emergent work chronicling the resistance and resilience of trans* stu-
dents provides critical new insight into the “how” of their persistence in
college, toward the “why” of their determination to stay. Z Nicolazzo’s
groundbreaking ethnographic study conducted alongside nine trans* col-
lege students at a large public Midwestern university revealed the power
of these students’ individual and collective resources enlisted in the effort
to push back against the daily onslaught of what could be an unfriendly or
hostile climate, as well as the unorthodox wisdom of stepping/stopping
out to preserve one’s sanity and safety.30 Unlike most other studies of the
trans* student experience, Nicolazzo’s sample was richly diverse across a
wide variety of identity categories, allowing for a far more nuanced revela-
tion of the impact of race (and racism), dis(ability), medical and mental
health status, social class, and other factors as they intersected with partici-
pants’ trans*ness. In the narratives of these nine remarkable young people,
Nicolazzo evinced a remarkable dynamism: resilience as a verb, practiced
in the every day, such as staying proximal to safe spaces where trans* kin
and allies could be quickly located (like the campus center), and making
choices to “come out” as trans* in the context of specific kinds of relevant
courses, where safety could be relatively assured. Other times, students
made choices about not coming out in certain spaces—again, in relation
to their own safety, not as an act of hiding, but as an act of affirmative
resilience, an enactment of their wisely intuitive, self-defined sense of pres-
ervation. Importantly, some in Nicolazzo’s study made choices to “stop
out” of school when doing so was essential to their health and wellbeing,
prompting interrogation of the maxim that “retention is always the goal.”
Their choices invite consideration: if the system is sick, does it really make
sense to insist that the patient remain exposed to the toxin?
Kinship also played a key role in defining trans* resistance and survival
in Nicolazzo’s study. With a nod to Gayle Rubin’s definition of kinship as
“a system of categories and statuses which often contradict actual genetic
relationships,”31 Nicolazzo found that participants experienced kinship
with others who (1) recognized and honored their gender identities,
246 S.B. MARINE
(2) provided a refuge from the cultural realities of the gender binary dis-
course and compulsory heterogenderism on campus, and (3) acted as a
potential site from which participants could resist or push back against sys-
temic genderism, if they so chose.32 Even though participants were clear
that not all kin had to identify as trans* to be part of their network, the
centrality of locating and connecting with other trans* folk was not inci-
dental to the students’ sense of survival on the campus. As Kade expressed,
“I will see people on campus who I think might be gender non-conform-
ing in some way, and I feel this sense of community, and almost familial
ties with them, because we have such a small community.”33 The use of the
word familial here, emphasis Nicolazzo’s, signals the unique bond shared
by those who have faced the oppression of genderism in the college con-
text—and who have persevered. In hopeful summary, practicing resilience,
alone or with others, and finding familial connections with others who
affirm trans* students provide powerful antidotes to the growing evidence
of both subtle and overt hostility, the culture of low expectations, and per-
haps most problematically, the insidiously persistent genderism directed
at—and endured by—trans* students on college campuses.
Resisting Genderism: The Next Chapter

The limited but growing body of evidence to date suggests that trans* stu-
dents face a variety of significant challenges in higher education, and draw
upon a resourceful array of internal (and external) resources to resist and
cope with these challenges. It is tempting to think that perhaps legislative
action is the remedy, and indeed, the potential for colleges and universi-
ties to be held accountable for being inaccessible to trans* students is
imminent, thanks to the Department of Education’s recent pronounce-
ments that protections for trans* students are also assured under Title
IX.34 However, as of the publication of this volume, no case law settled
to date has affirmed students’ rights to specific accommodations in higher
education related to gender identity under this law.
In the meantime, it seems prudent for educators who care about the
transformation of higher education, beyond inclusion and toward full
participation and indeed ownership by trans* students, to continue to
work for the eradication of genderism. As demonstrated in the previous
section, genderism has suffused nearly every domain of higher education
practice and policy in ways that significantly attenuate the college lives of
trans* students. Whether in the co-curriculum, the classroom, or in the
subtle ways that informal peer encounters provide inducement to growth,

many contexts where genderism is practiced are not only incidental to, but
arguably, inimical to the purposes of higher education. In the following
section, I will examine the area of campus where genderism currently (p)
resides most intractably, yet where the most coherent rationale for moving
toward more committed change is afoot, one that would hasten greater
ownership for trans*students, and would more meaningfully enable their
full participation. It is grounded in the notion of community, safety, and
home, both surpassing and effacing the need for legislative mandates.
De(Constructing) Genderism: The Case

Against Binary Campus Spaces
Perhaps the strongest and most sustained clarion call for systemic change
in higher education pertaining to trans* students can be summed up sim-
ply as: “please provide more gender neutral bathrooms.”35 Arguing pas-
sionately for their right to obtain natural biological relief in a protected
space has united trans* activists of all walks of life since the movement
coalesced in the 1970s36; sadly, manufactured transphobic panic over the
potential for sexual predators to masquerade as transgender women in
order to gain access to women’s restrooms has stymied efforts toward this
foundational goal.37 On college campuses, as with all other public accom-
modations, there are two kinds of bathroom accessibility needs for those
who identify as trans*. For those who identify on the binary (as men or
women), they must be free to use the bathroom (and locker room, and
residence hall) spaces that correspond to their self-identified gender. And
for those who do not, they must be able to access bathroom (and other)
spaces that do not require a gender identification at all—so-called “gender
neutral” or “gender inclusive” (in common parlance, unisex) bathrooms.
Typically these are single-stall bathrooms, locker room facilities, and resi-
dence hall rooms on non-gendered wings or floors.
Colleges and universities have a mixed record on providing access to
these spaces for students, whether they identify as trans* or simply wish to
have access to singular spaces for privacy or other reasons. The Americans
with Disabilities Act has improved access to single-stall spaces with respect
to bathrooms and locker rooms, as in many cases campuses have added
single stall bathrooms in order to comply with the requirements of the Act
for larger stall spaces with bathroom support rails, higher toilets, and other
248 S.B. MARINE
adjustments needed for those with mobility impairment.38 Some institu-

tions have developed what might be considered model practices for iden-
tifying, providing access to, and in a few cases even converting existing
restrooms to be maximally accommodating, both in terms of single stall
and multiple stall unisex options, such as at the University of California at
Berkeley.39
Other institutions have resisted adding or modifying restroom spaces,
or have indicated their existence but refrained from making it easy or con-
venient for students to find and access them. Research has demonstrated
that lack of access to appropriate facilities has resulted in minority stress
on trans* individuals, including physical and verbal assault, negative health
effects, adverse impact on their employment, and a likelihood of refraining
from participation in public life and events.40 Institutions typically blame
lack of access or modification of restrooms and other facilities on the cost,
or to local building codes which dictate that bathroom spaces must be
gendered in particular ratios to their use as specified in ordinances.41 In
other cases, colleges and university officials are avoidant about stating the
real reasons (their own discomfort, or masked concerns about students’
discomfort or transphobia) for denying trans* students access to cam-
pus spaces which correspond to their gender, as in the case of a Miami
University student who was denied employment as an RA on a male floor,
even though he was transmasculine (but listed in official university records
as female-sexed).42
Debates about the “cost-benefit” analysis of modifying spaces contin-
ues, and even though colleges continue to resist engagement with ques-
tions about discomfort with allowing students to identify as they choose
and access spaces according to their self-identification, I submit that two
seldom-broached but equally relevant questions germane to the issue of
genderist practices in campus spaces beg consideration. These are: (1) is
there evidence for the notion that students will use cross-gender iden-
tification to access spaces in order to harm other students?, and (2) are
there foundational values in the student affairs profession that create a
moral imperative for the elimination of genderist practice with respect to
campus spaces on the college campus? In an effort to make a case for the
deconstruction of genderist campus spaces, I will next examine each of
these questions in turn.
The Question of Danger Since the advent of in loco parentis, fundamental

to colleges’ duty to students is their duty to protect them from harm, a
role for the modern academy that has withstood both the test of time
and numerous applications of case law. Institutional accountability for pre-
venting harm to students extends to every aspect of college life, on and
off campus, from the fraternity party right down the street to the study
abroad site thousands of miles away. Colleges often enlist small armies of
attorneys and risk management experts to assist in forecasting and val-
iantly attempting to minimize (if not outright eliminate) the risk of harm,
especially to students. Campus crime is an area of increasing scrutiny for
college officials charged with risk prevention, and of particular concern is
the increasing awareness of all forms of sexual crime committed on the
college campus, thanks to steady and relentless activism and research,
largely by feminist scholars.43 Legitimately, campuses are charged with
doing everything they can to identify, root out, and eliminate the causes
and conditions of sexual victimization.
Unspoken, but in the background of debates about opening up access

to campus facilities such as bathrooms, locker rooms, and restrooms to
students on the basis of self-defined gender identity, is the fear that this
will increase the likelihood that some will abuse the expanded access, tak-
ing advantage of it to encroach upon women’s spaces, in order to corner
them and sexually abuse or otherwise harm them. This fear drives the
unwillingness to seriously move toward expanding access of their spaces,
causing colleges to make decisions based on the possibility of an aberrant
use of a policy, rather than its liberatory potential for the expansion of
opportunity, belonging, and comfort of trans* students. The haunting
specter of the bogeyman abusing the policy is invoked regularly in efforts
to reject ordinances in cities and towns allowing trans* adults to use pub-
lic accommodations.44 Yet the fact of the matter is, not a single recorded
incident of a trans* person sexually assaulting someone, exposing them-
selves to someone, or otherwise harming a person in a public restroom has
ever been filed with any police jurisdiction in the USA.45 The same is true
for college campuses. What is far more likely is the statistical reality—as
reported by more than one in four school-age youth in a recent GLSEN
survey—of being attacked as a trans* person for being perceived to be
“out of line” with one’s assigned gender.46
When the specter of danger is set aside through the application of rea-
son and facts, it stands to reason that some may simply wonder about
modesty. However, there is no real conflict between preserving modesty
and opening access to campus spaces. College campuses and their facilities
250 S.B. MARINE
are arguably excellent places for opening up of access precisely because

they are relatively closed communities, where typically a finite number of
people travel, live and work at any given time. They provide an excellent
opportunity for developing familiarity and thus, trust in a bathroom, a set
of locker room stalls, and a residence hall wing. Studying, working, and
living among one another, we tend to see the same faces, day after day.
It is in this comfortable relative monotony that students should feel most
amenable to the idea of open, shared space that is accessible to all who
identify with needing it—no matter their gender. If reasonable efforts are
made to respect privacy—such as providing lockable doors in multi-stall
bathrooms, and providing secure curtains in showers and changing stalls,
individuals can be assured of their own needs for modesty and privacy,
while also respecting others’ needs for being able to occupy the spaces that
suit their identities. It is essential also to remember that danger is not only
about the threat or reality of physical assault, but about the immediate
and cumulative harm caused by negation of one’s whole, authentic self in
community with (or conversely, in isolation from) others.
The Question of Professional Ethos Practical matters of risk, danger, and the
potential for real and imagined harm must be grappled with when making
any policy decision. Yet, these matters often obscure larger questions of
student affairs educators’ professional obligations—first to students, then
to one another as professionals, and to the profession as a whole. What
elements constitute professional identity in student affairs is a matter of
debate, and has been since the 1930s with the advent of the foundational
publication, the Student Personnel Point of View.47 In the 1990s, a resur-
gent interest in declaring a unified sense of the tenets of the profession
emerged, centering the role of the practitioner in fostering intentional stu-
dent learning, both within and outside of the classroom.48 Yet, ever present
in the background of these narratives has been a persistent, inchoate voice,
articulating a different value with equal urgency: advancing social justice.49
A commitment to social justice within the profession of student affairs

has manifested in a number of different ways, including actively demon-
strating and advocating for the integration of single-sex education for
women and blacks in the Civil Rights era,50 supporting students in dem-
onstrations against the Vietnam War in the 1970s,51 and fostering the pro-
motion of “identity centers” and their work within the profession.52 In
the current era, the profession has firmly established its commitment to
principles of social justice through the release of the 2015 statement on

professional competency areas for student affairs educators. In this most
recent re-release, the Associations bolstered their commitment to an active
stance toward social justice, stating:
Our most substantial change was in relation to the Equity, Diversity, and
Inclusion competency from the 2010 document, which we renamed Social
Justice and Inclusion…Though an important concept, diversity can imply
a static, non-participatory orientation where the term diverse is associated
with members of non-dominant groups. In contrast, we aimed to frame
inclusiveness in a manner that does not norm dominant cultures [empha-
sis mine]… Bell’s (1997) definition of social justice further necessitates
that social justice include “a vision of society in which the distribution of
resources is equitable and all members are physically and psychologically
safe and secure” (p. 3).53 This definition subsumes the construct of equity
as more than a goal, but a precondition of a larger good. In sum, our intent
was to integrate the concepts of equity, diversity, and inclusion within the
active framework of social justice.54
This decidedly more active and robust approach to the work of advanc-
ing equity in higher education signaled a stronger stance by both asso-
ciations, ushering in a clear directive regarding the profession’s role in
advancing social change. When examining the issue of genderist policies
in campus spaces, it seems clear that in keeping with a mandate of resisting
the “norm[ing] of dominant cultures” and ensuring that “all members
are physically and psychologically safe and secure,” reducing the harm
caused by restricting campus spaces on the basis of assigned, rather than
self-identified, genders is anathema to both the letter and spirit of this
competency. Closer examination of the specific directives associated with
the competency, student affairs practitioners are tasked with
Understand[ing] how one is affected by and participates in maintaining

systems of oppression, privilege, and power…. Identify[ing] systemic bar-
riers to social justice and inclusion and assess[ing] one’s own department’s
role in addressing such barriers, and…Assess[ing] the effectiveness of the
institution in removing barriers to addressing issues of social justice and
inclusion.55
For practitioners, the directives signal a professional obligation not only

to recognize and name barriers to inclusion and ownership, but to act
252 S.B. MARINE
toward their dismantlement as well. Doing so requires a significant shift of

perspective: from guarantor of access to transformative advocate.
Arguably, transformational practice asks for a concomitant shift in think-
ing, from simply working for parity for trans* students to imagining an
entirely different landscape in which they can study, work and thrive. For
example, Z Nicolazzo engaged Dean Spade’s theory of Critical Trans Politics
to advocate for a shift in the way colleges and universities respond to the
needs of trans* students, resisting the notion that trans* individuals should
adapt to pre-established, gender normative practices.56 Nicolazzo wrote:
…rather than requiring trans* students to “out” themselves in attempting

to access safe and comfortable housing—which is often limited based on
the (non-) existence of “gender neutral” housing options—colleges should
seriously reconsider the illogical assumptions upon which sex and gender are
used as categories of difference when making housing assignments.57
Actively refusing to participate in limiting binary logics, Nicolazzo’s theo-

retical stance advances the status, safety, and belonging of trans* students in
higher education by thinking and acting beyond the simplistic temptations
of institutional policy often disguised as “accommodations.” Nicolazzo
centers the work instead on a “trickle up approach,”58 explaining:
Taking a “trickle up” approach to diversity and social justice work also
means asking hard questions regarding which populations are present/
absent, visible/invisible, and targeted/welcomed on college and university
campuses. From here, educators can begin to frame educational initiatives,
programmatic efforts, and support services around those whose access is the
most limited.59
This framework provides a meaningful alternative to practicing a “sta-

tus quo” approach to gender inclusion, moving away from discourses of
“accommodation” to centering those who have been least well served by
current practices.
The Role of Practitioners

Far from being passive observers within their institutions, student affairs
practitioners are, thus, charged with being thoughtful, vigilant arbiters
of socially just practices, seeking out opportunities to provide redress for
groups who are poorly served by longstanding but ineffectual practices,
particularly when those practices serve to foreclose full engagement of

marginalized groups for factually indefensible reasons. Nowhere might this
be more true than in the case of trans* students, whose health and wellbe-
ing depend on their ability to easily and conveniently access appropriate
restrooms, to participate in appropriate exercise and fitness activities, and
experience an authentic sense of belonging to a residential and academic
community, the positive outcomes of which have been exhaustively dem-
onstrated. Trickle up social justice work requires a willingness to take an
active stance on behalf of trans* students, to seek out their perspectives,
to collect and analyze data rigorously and regularly, and to investigate the
origins of current practices, including the myths that may circulate under-
neath and around them. It requires asking difficult questions, challenging
inaccurate assumptions, and persisting in finding solutions. Practicing in
this manner will challenge the very heart of the enterprise of institutional
practice, which is often to wait until complaints reach a fever pitch in order
to address them. Being proactive in the identification of barriers to trans*
student ownership of the college experience rightfully shifts the burden
of institutional transformation to (primarily) cisgender practitioners and
scholars, so that our privilege can be used to effect change rather than
bolster the status quo.
Conclusion
One decade ago, four courageous trans* college students stepped onto
the small screen to share their lives with the world in order to shed light
on the realities of life in the ivory tower while undergoing gender transi-
tion. Despite her many obstacles to success, Raci made it through Cal
State LA, as did the other three at their respective colleges—a tremendous
feat of grit and determination to be sure. None of them enjoyed the kinds
of acceptance and support that trans* students today experience—just as
none today benefit from the full integration that they rightfully should.
A decade on, I have argued, the evidence suggests the costs of studying
at a US college or university as a trans* student continue to be significant.
Both in and out of the classroom, trans* students face a myriad of obstacles
to their full participation that colleges are ethically obligated to address.
Student affairs professionals have a particular ethical mandate to attend
to their amelioration, to foreground the identification and deconstruc-
tion of genderism wherever it persists, and to amplify the voices of trans*
students when they name oppressive practices in their midst. To move
254 S.B. MARINE
beyond inclusion toward ownership is to anticipate the needs of trans*

students in a way that signals that they are wanted and welcome—indeed,
that they are, or rather should be, the rightful owners of their college
experience. Interrogating current practices for the ways that genderism is
manifested in campus spaces, asking the questions often obscured behind
stated values, and engaging in fearless investigation of our values as a pro-
fession are signposts toward enactment of truly liberatory practice. To
name and deconstruct genderism means to question the speciousness
upon which traditional policies and practices rest, to engage openly with
the thinly defensible calls for “modesty” and the overtly false suppositions
of “safety.” This is the beginning of truly transformed college experience
for trans* students, particularly those living beyond the strictures of the
binary, moving beyond inclusion, toward a future where trans* college
students finally feel at home on every campus, everywhere.
Notes
1. Smothers, TransGeneration.
2. While the term ‘tranny’ is generally considered a pejorative when
used by cisgender people, it has been used as a term of reclamation
within the trans* community. For more on this, see Molloy (2014)
3. Bernstein, “In Their Own Terms: The Growing Transgender
Presence in Pop Culture”; Steinmetz, “America’s Transition”;
Steinmetz, “Laverne Cox Talks to TIME about the Transgender
Movement.”
4. Bissinger, “Call me Caitlyn.”
5. Hill, “Genderism, Transphobia, and Gender Bashing: A Framework
for Interpreting Anti-Transgender Violence.”
6. Marine, Stonewall’s Legacy: Bisexual, Gay, Lesbian, and Transgender
Students in Higher Education; Marine and Nicolazzo, “Names that
matter: Exploring the tensions of LGBT Centers and Trans*
Inclusion.”
7. Beemyn, “Serving the Needs of Transgender College Students”;
Beemyn, Curtis, Davis, and Tubbs, “Transgender Issues on College
Campuses”; Bilodeau, “Beyond the Gender Binary: A Case Study
of Two Transgender Students at a Midwestern Research
University.”
8. Marine and Catalano, “Engaging Trans* Students.”
9. Hill, “Genderism, Transphobia, and Gender Bashing: A Framework

for Interpreting Anti-Transgender Violence.”
10. Ibid., 119.
11. Bilodeau, “Beyond the Gender Binary: A Case Study of Two

Transgender Students at a Midwestern Research University.”
12. D’Augelli, “Identity Development and Sexual Orientation: Toward
a Model of Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Development.”
13. Bilodeau, “Beyond the Gender Binary: A Case Study of Two

Transgender Students at a Midwestern Research University,” 43.
14. McKinney, “On the margins: A study of experiences of transgender
college students.”
15. Spade, “Fighting to Win.”
16. McKinney, “On the Margins: A Study of Experiences of

Transgender College Students,” 72.
17. Pusch, “Objects of Curiosity: Transgender College Students’

Perceptions of the Reactions of Others.”
18. Pryor, “Out in the Classroom: Transgender Student Experiences
at a Large Public University.”
19. Ibid., 450.
20. Dugan, Kusel, and Simounet, “Transgender College Students: An
Exploratory Study of Perceptions, Engagement, and Educational
Outcomes.”
21. Ibid., 732.
22. Ibid.
23. Rankin, Weber, Blumenfeld, and Frazier, State of Higher Education
for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender People, 15.
24. Catalano, “Beyond Virtual Equality: Liberatory Consciousness as
a Path to Achieve Trans∗ Inclusion in Higher Education.”
25. Ibid., 426.
26. Dubois, The Souls of Black Folk, 7.
a Path to Achieve Trans∗ Inclusion in Higher Education.”
28. Love, “Developing a Liberatory Consciousness.”
a Path to Achieve Trans∗ Inclusion in Higher Education,” 429.
30. Nicolazzo, “Just Go in Looking Good: The Resilience, Resistance,
and Kinship Building of Trans* College Students.”
31. Rubin, “The Traffic in Women: Notes on the ‘Political Economy’
of Sex,” 41.
256 S.B. MARINE

and Kinship Building of Trans* College Students,”134.
33. Ibid., 141
34. Transgender Law Center, “Big News! DOE Guidance Says
Transgender Students Protected under Federal Law.”
35. Brown, “The Quest for a Bathroom that’s Neither a Men’s nor a
Women’s Room.”
36. Chess, Kafer, Quizar, and Richardson, “Calling all Restroom

Revolutionaries!”
37. Taylor, “Transgender Right Advocates Going to Battle over

Bathrooms.”
38. Department of Justice, 2010 ADA Standards for Accessible Design.
39. University of California at Berkeley, Unisex, Single-Stall, Gender
Inclusive, and Other Restrooms on UC Berkeley’s Campus.
40. Herman, Gendered Restrooms and Minority Stress: The Public
Regulation of Gender and its Impact on Transgender People’s Lives.
41. Brown, “The Biggest Obstacle to Gender Neutral Bathrooms?
Building Codes.”
42. Nicolazzo and Marine, “It Will Change if People Keep Talking:
Trans* Students in College and University Housing.”
43. Fisher, Bonnie Sue, Daigle, Leah E., and Cullen, Francis T. Unsafe
in the Ivory Tower: The Sexual Victimization of College Women.
44. Taylor, “Transgender Right Advocates Going to Battle over

Bathrooms.”
45. Bianco, “Statistics Show Exactly How Many Times Trans People
have Attacked you in Bathrooms.”
46. Greytak, Kosciw, and Diaz, Harsh Realities: The Experiences of

Transgender Youth in our Nation’s Schools.
47. American Council on Education, The Student Personnel Point of
View (1937); American Council on Education, The Student
Personnel Point of View (1949).
48. National Association of Student Personnel Administrators, and

American College Personnel Association, Learning Reconsidered:
A Campus-wide Focus on the Student Experience.
49. Young, “Values and Philosophies Guiding the Student Affairs

Profession.”
50. Thelin, A History of Higher Education.
51. Heineman, Campus Wars: The Peace Movement at American State
Universities in the Vietnam Era.
52. Patton and Ladson Billings, Culture Centers in Higher Education:

Perspectives on Identity, Theory, and Practice.
53. Bell, “Theoretical Foundations for Social Justice Education.”
54. American College Personnel Association, and National Association
of Student Personnel Administrators, Professional Competency
Areas for Student Affairs Administrators, 4.
55. Ibid., 15.
and Kinship Building of Trans* College Students”; Spade, Normal
Life: Administrative Violence, Critical Trans Politics, and the
Limitations of Law.
and Kinship Building of Trans* College Students,” 7–8.
58. Ibid., 157.
59. Ibid., 158.
CHAPTER 12
The Female “Confidence Gap” and Feminist

Pedagogy: Gender Dynamics in the Active,
Engaged Classroom
Amanda L. Irvin
In 1995, Robert Barr and John Tagg called for a revolution in higher
education, insisting educators move from a “instruction” paradigm to a
“learning” paradigm.”1 Twenty years later, after much national, institu-
tional, and individual change, the active, engaged classroom has taken
center stage. As active-learning pedagogies are becoming more popu-
lar—the “flipped” classroom, team-based learning, and problem-based
learning, just to name a few—instructors are expecting more engage-
ment from students. The actual classrooms and learning spaces, too, are
evolving across campuses to become interactive studio spaces rather than
traditional, “passive” lecture halls. But pedagogies and classrooms are
not the only elements of higher education currently undergoing a shift;
the student body is changing as well. There are more female students in
college classrooms than ever before. Indeed, as the editors of this volume
have noted, women are often the “new majority” on campuses. While the
presence of more female students is certainly progress in terms of gender
equity, the changing student body on college campuses also highlights
A.L. Irvin (*)

Teaching Initiatives and Programs, Center for Teaching and Learning, Columbia
University in the City of New York, New York, NY, USA

260 A.L. IRVIN
the need for a greater attention to gender as socially constructed, fluid,

and non-binary (for more information about these ideas, see Lorber2 and
Butler3). When faculty members employ active learning techniques like
the ones listed above, gender scripts influence the ways students can and
will engage, and since student engagement with course content and class-
room community is one of the great strengths of active learning methods,
an attention to gender identities of students is paramount.
Instructors face myriad challenges in terms of student engagement,
often resulting in questions: how does one keep track of all the comments,
questions, and discussions that take place in an active, engaged class period?
How does one distinguish quality from quantity? And moreover, how can
one be sure to acknowledge the student with the best contribution instead
of the one who speaks first or loudest during class discussion? Many of
these questions are not new, but given the shifting gendered makeup of
our classrooms and the emphasis these emerging pedagogies place on
engagement and participation, the answers are more important than ever.
Likewise, students are also navigating new territory, reluctant to partici-
pate, fearing failure, judgment, or ridicule. While a student’s willingness to
engage and participate in a classroom environment can be driven by per-
sonality, faculty members must also take factors like gender identity, race,
class, and culture into consideration. The importance of who students are
and how they approach learning cannot be understated. Gender identity,
in particular, influences student engagement in the classroom environ-
ment and that active, engaged learning hinges on both instructor and
student awareness of the gender dynamics at play.
Attention to the gender dynamics in an active-learning environment is
important for many reasons, but one of the most important is the reliance
on students taking more responsibility through self-reporting and peer-
assessment. In an active-learning classroom, students may be responsible
for evaluating their peers’ contributions to whole class discussion; they
may be asked to rate the other students in their team or group; and they
may even be required to evaluate their own participation or prepared-
ness—sometimes daily. These methods are often met with great success,
especially as students intentionally reflect on their own contributions to
the classroom community as well as those of their peers. But what these
methods fail to consider are the very real differences between the ways
male and female students rate their own performances, contributions, and
abilities in relation to those of their peers. In Lean In, Sheryl Sandberg4
shares an illuminating story about her own college experience at Harvard,
THE FEMALE “CONFIDENCE GAP” AND FEMINIST PEDAGOGY: GENDER... 261
in particular a course she and her roommate took with Sandberg’s brother.
They were all enrolled in the same European intellectual history class.
Sandberg’s roommate, Carrie, went to all the lectures and read all the
books—in the original languages. Sandberg went to most of the lectures
and read all the books in English. Sandberg’s brother, David, went to two
lectures, read one book, and then “marched himself up to our room to get
tutored for the final exam.”5 After the final exam, the three were decom-
pressing, sharing how well (or poorly) they thought they did. Sandberg
and Carrie were sure they had missed the finer nuances of theories, cer-
tain they had not done well. David, on the other hand, was sure he had
aced the test. Sandberg shares the conclusion saying, “Actually, we all
got flat A’s on the exam. My brother was not overconfident. Carrie and
I were overly insecure.”6 Sandberg’s story sheds light on the ways male
and female students interpret their performances differently. While I will
explore this idea in more detail later in the chapter, I share her story now
as a way of illustrating that self- and peer-evaluation methods, though
strong in many ways in an active-learning environment, may not take into
consideration that our students are whole human beings navigating com-
plex gender-based social scripts on a daily basis—and that does not stop
when they walk into our classrooms.
When faculty development and how-to texts offer recommendations to
instructors wishing to create an active, engaged classroom—and evaluate
and grade the students participating therein—they usually approach stu-
dents (and faculty) as gender-neutral. These texts often refer to students as
one, homogenous group, often glossing over differences of gender, race,
class, ability, and so forth. In many ways, this can be intentional and appro-
priate; the texts offer a range of strategies and methods to implement the
flipped classroom or active learning or team-based learning, and authors
make it clear that the instructor is responsible for choosing methods and
making judgment calls based on their student population. Even though
this can usually work quite well, many instructors are unaware of the ways
active, engaged learning can intersect with gender dynamics. Moreover,
even when an instructor is aware that gender dynamics may influence the
success of a strategy, they may not have the heuristics to adapt or revise the
learning moment to address the diversity of gender identities and perfor-
mances that show up in their classrooms on a daily basis.
In any discussion of gender and education, classroom contexts are
important, so in this chapter I discuss how gender dynamics may influ-
ence student engagement and performance in active-learning settings and
262 A.L. IRVIN
explain how educators might employ feminist pedagogy to more fully con-
sider the role gender plays in an active-learning environment. I begin by
discussing common practices and benefits of active, engaged learning. It
bears mentioning that, for the purposes of this discussion, I am using the
terms “active” and “engaged” learning to mean a variety of pedagogies and
methods that focus more on application of information than the delivery of
content; methods like the “flipped” classroom, active learning, cooperative
learning, problem-based learning, and team-based learning fall into these
categories. Other experiential pedagogies, like study abroad and service-
learning, share a commitment to application and engagement, but they
take place outside the confines of a classroom atmosphere and are not the
focus of this conversation. Online learning, too, can certainly employ these
application-based methods, but web based classes can mask gender differ-
ently and therefore is outside the parameters of this particular discussion.
Once I establish a context for our active, engaged learning discus-
sion, I then turn to relevant research and faculty development materials
that investigate gender dynamics in the college classroom, exploring in
particular how male and female students regard their own abilities and
performances. Given that women often outnumber men on many cam-
puses, it can be easy to overlook the importance of gender in classroom
contexts, but socially constructed gender roles influence student perfor-
mance, regardless of the percentage of men or women in the room. The
general consensus is that female students consistently underrate their abili-
ties while male students consistently overrate their abilities; male students
attribute their successes to innate ability, while female students attribute
successes to luck, effort, or support from others. This information can
provide context and perspective for those considering (or already imple-
menting) active, engaged pedagogies in their classes. Next, I turn to some
methods instructors have employed in active, engaged classrooms and
investigate how these practices may be revised, drawing heavily on femi-
nist pedagogy, to offer solutions to help students of all genders succeed in
these high-impact environments.
Active, Engaged Learning: Benefits and Gender-

Based Challenges
Students learn best by doing. If one wants to learn to play tennis, for
example, then one should get out on the court with a racket and ball.
Why, then, is it so hard to get students to “do” literature or philoso-
phy or economics? Elizabeth Barkley opens the first chapter to Student

Engagement Techniques by asking a similar question, extending her inquiry
to the entire idea of student engagement: “Why is it sometimes so hard to
get students to think… to care… to engage?”7 She argues that this ques-
tion is at the heart of the national and international dialogue about active,
engaged learning in higher education. But what is active, engaged learn-
ing? And what does it look like in practice? The answers are numerous,
as one may imagine. Even though the definitions and efficacy of active,
engaged learning are not the primary focus of this discussion, I offer some
examples to provide context. These are by no means exhaustive; rather,
this coalescence of narratives serves as a jumping-off point for the rest of
the conversation regarding engagement methods and gender dynamics in
our classrooms.
In one of the earliest definitions, Chet Meyers and Thomas Jones
explained that “active learning is usually understood to stand in con-
trast to traditional classroom styles where teachers do most of the
work and students remain passive.”8 Terry Doyle has more recently
offered a similar definition that hinges on student ownership and con-
trol saying,
[Active learning] requires students to take on new learning roles and respon-
sibilities that go far beyond taking notes and passing tests. It’s an environ-
ment that allows students to take some real control over their educational
experience and encourages them to make important choices about what and
how they will learn.9
While Doyle’s emphasis is on the changing role of the student in the

active, engaged classroom, other researches have focused on the role of
the instructor. In Leaving the Lectern, for example, Dean McManus10
makes clear that for students to learn actively, educators must decrease
the amount of time they spend in lecture or direct teaching mode. The
research on teaching and learning makes it clear that active, engaged learn-
ing developed on the basis that students will learn best when they do the
work of a discipline, which requires students to claim some responsibility
and agency in the learning process. The shift to engaged learning also
requires educators to relinquish some of the control in their classrooms—
to involve students in the production of knowledge, which is sometimes
messy, instead of showing them the finished product in a neat, orderly
slide deck.
264 A.L. IRVIN
Even though many of these ideas about active learning and student
engagement are not new, per se, there has been a recent uptick in the num-
ber of books, journal articles, op-eds, and conference sessions focusing on
the “flipped” classroom, active learning, cooperative learning, problem-
based learning, and team-based learning. Each of these methods has its own
lexicon of research, methods, and texts—and the scholars of each would
likely bristle at being lumped together here—but they share, at their core,
a commitment to active, engaged learning. As these methods continue
to rise in popularity and adoption, the question of how one enacts these
evidence-based methods in a diverse classroom becomes more important.
As Maryellen Weimer puts it, active, engaged learning is “trendy now and
along with that come the proverbial blessings and curses.”11
The “blessings” of active, engaged learning are numerous. When
students claim responsibility for their learning, their buy-in to the pro-
cess increases, and they learn in a more intentional way when they apply
this new knowledge. Students view concepts from different perspectives
when they collaborate with their peers, and intentional reflection about
their own learning processes encourages them to evaluate their prepared-
ness and participation (or that of their peers; for more information, see
Bergman and Sams12; Michaelson, Knight and Fink13; Barell14; Doyle
and Zakrajsek15 among others). Of course, there are also challenges (see
Petersen and Gorman16). Students do not always want to claim respon-
sibility for their learning, for a variety of reasons. Passive “sit and get”
classes are easier for students versus actively participating. Moreover, by
actively participating, students must also claim responsibility for their
failures. Application, though valuable and necessary for deep, intentional
learning, can also be messy and challenging, which can turn off instructors
and students alike.
Facilitating an application exercise often entails lots of moving parts;
the classroom will likely be louder, student groups will be talking and
working at the same time, and it is possible that not all students will be
working on the same piece of the exercise at the same moment. It can be
a lot for students and instructors to manage in a given class period. And
last but certainly not least: active, engaged learning can be challenging to
grade.
From the students’ perspective, grading course elements like participa-
tion, preparedness, teamwork, and professionalism can seem subjective.
From the perspective of an instructor, grading these same elements can be
overwhelming, distracting, and yes, potentially subjective. But assessing,
evaluating, and grading these components of an active, engaged classroom

is often necessary if instructors want students to value the process. In
Teaching for Learning, Major, Harris, and Zakrajsek addressed the ques-
tion of grading participation and preparedness,
One question instructors often have is whether to grade or score class dis-
cussions. The idea is that it could potentially have a stifling effect on the
discussion. On the other hand, not grading participation could lead to a
lack of investment in the activity. The research seems to point to the latter.17
While the evaluation and grading of participation and discussion is a “best

practice” in terms of getting students to invest in the process, it is also
hard. At the outset of this discussion, I included some questions active
learning practitioners often ask themselves regarding grading: how does
one keep track of all the comments? How does one distinguish quality
from quantity? How can one be sure to acknowledge the student with the
best contribution instead of the one who speaks first or loudest? The com-
plexity of answers to these questions is heightened when also considering
gender dynamics of our class community.
A few years ago, I decided to revise some of my courses to have a stron-
ger focus on active, engaged learning. I had prided myself on facilitating a
welcoming, engaged classroom community from the outset, so I did not
anticipate that the shift would require much revision. (I was only half-
right.) While I knew my daily classroom practices would become more
interactive, and had armed myself with lots of active learning strategies,
my main concern was the grading scheme. Would I grade participation?
Early in my teaching career, I had been coached to keep the portion of my
grading scheme allocated to participation below 10 % of the final grade.
The rationale was that participation is difficult to assess, and if students
were to challenge a grade at the end of the semester, that is the first place
they would start. Students expect, I was told, that if they show up, do
the work, and not make any trouble, they will earn the full amount of
participation points. In my previous experience, I had found this to be
true. Admittedly, to that point in time, I had not tried any other methods.
As I made revisions to my course, I was holding previous coaching and
experience in tension with the knowledge that student engagement was
valuable for learning. I finally decided that if I wanted students to share my
philosophy (at least for the semester) about the value of engaged learning,
I would need to use a system they valued as well: grades.
266 A.L. IRVIN
I eventually settled on a “Participation and Preparedness” assignment

that counted for 30 % of the final grade. This change in contribution to
the final grade made participation worth more than any other graded
component, therefore, I needed a good system to keep track of and
grade their active participation. I had tried writing down the name of
every student who spoke during class, making a small note about what
that student contributed, but I often could not keep up with students’
comments and the note-taking distracted me from teaching and focusing
on what students were actually saying. I had heard of instructors passing
Popsicle sticks and notecards to students who shared in discussion, but I
felt like I needed something more robust to account for quality as well as
quantity. Finally, a colleague suggested I ask students to self-assess their
participation and preparedness. I loved this idea. I developed a rubric
students used on a daily basis (see Table 12.1); they kept it in front of
them during every class as a reminder for what level of engagement was
expected, and at the end of each class session scored themselves and
provided a rationale for the score they earned. I was delighted by this
system.
The development of a self-assessment rubric not only provided evaluation struc-
ture that supported my grading policy but also put the grading in students’
hands, which is an element of education where students often feel a lack of
control or agency. Students knew that I always reserved the right to increase or
lower scores based on my observations. The rubric required students to reflect
intentionally on their preparation, participation, and engagement in the class
community. We normed for a few weeks, and after that point I thought the
system was working perfectly, until I started noticing an unsettling trend.
Female students were consistently underrating their performance and often
including disparaging comments about their own understanding of the material
and ability to add value to the classroom community. Male students, on the
other hand, were overrating their performances, often awarding themselves full
credit for material it was obvious they had not read before class. As someone
who teaches in the field of Women and Gender Studies, I should have seen this
coming.
Gender Dynamics in the Active, Engaged Classroom

My students’ self-assessments are directly in line with what researchers
know about how men and women rate their own work; women consis-
tently underrate and downplay their work while men consistently over-
rate their contributions and abilities (for more information see Clance
Table 12.1 Participation and preparedness rubric

Participation and preparedness rubric
9–10 Arrives on time or early for class; reads and takes notes on ALL materials for the
class session; brings class materials and notes to class to help generate
conversation; participates actively and contributes meaningfully to class discussion
by asking thoughtful questions; fully invests in all class discussions; encourages
classmates to participate; demonstrates respect and understanding for classmates
during conversation; does not become distracted by technology
7–8 Arrives on time or early for class; reads MOST of the materials for the class
session; brings class materials but isn’t necessarily prepared with notes to generate
conversation; participates in class discussion by asking questions, but they’re
mostly opinion-based and may not move the class forward in a meaningful way;
invests in all class discussions; encourages classmates to participate; demonstrates
respect and understanding for classmates during conversation; does not become
distracted by technology
5–6 Arrives on time or a little late for class; reads SOME of the class materials; brings
class materials but isn’t necessarily prepared with notes to generate conversation;
participates when called on to do so (but does not volunteer); might ask
questions; partially invests in all class discussions; demonstrates respect and
understanding for classmates during conversation; may be distracted by
technology once or twice
1–5 Arrives late to class (more than 3 minutes); reads little of the materials and is
unprepared with notes or may not have materials (books/handouts) for class;
participates when called on to do so (but does not volunteer); minimally invests
in all class discussions; may be disrespectful of a classmate; may seem distracted or
dazed; may be distracted by technology once or twice
and Imes18 and Kay and Shipman19). For instructors who are employing
active, engaged pedagogies, knowing how these gender-based behaviors
may play out in the classroom is crucial. Many of the evaluation methods
I discuss above—rating group or team members’ contributions in appli-
cation exercises, evaluating group members’ engagement in relation to
their own engagement, self-assessing performance in class discussion—ask
students to assess their own skills, performances, and preparations. Even
when they are working from the same rubric, and even when they were
present in the same class sessions, the reality is that on the whole, female
and male students evaluate their performances differently.20
The obvious first question to ask is why. Why do female students under-
rate their performance? The question is complicated, and there is a long,
established history of answers. I will offer some of the highlights here; in
the space allowed I cannot do justice to the rich body of work addressing
268 A.L. IRVIN
this issue. Pauline Clance and Suzanne Imes asked a similar question in
1978 as they interviewed and studied 150 high-achieving women: “Why
do so many bright women, despite consistent and impressive evidence to
the contrary, continue to see themselves as imposters who pretend to be
bright but who really are not?”21 Their inquiry was part of their intro-
duction to the “imposter phenomenon,” as they shared groundbreaking
research that found women lack confidence in their abilities and have low
expectations of themselves when compared to men. “Women tend to attri-
bute their successes to temporary causes, such as luck or effort,” Clance
and Imes explained,
in contrast with men who are much more likely to attribute their successes
to the internal, stable factor of ability. Conversely, women tend to explain
failure with lack of ability, whereas men more often attribute failure to luck
or task difficulty. Given the lower expectancies women have for their own
(and other women’s) performances, they have apparently internalized into a
self-stereotype that they are not considered competent.22
Since 1978, scholars have been replicating these results and trying to make
sense of the information. The research has led some to consider “confi-
dence” as an operative factor in the equation regarding self-assessment of
success. In fact, Katy Kay and Claire Shipman found that “success cor-
relates more closely with confidence than it does with competence. Yes,
there is evidence that confidence is more important than ability when it
comes to getting ahead.”23 If confidence is key when it comes to success—
and women lack confidence overall, when compared to men—there are
huge implications for classroom practices, especially those that hinge on
engagement, participation, and peer- or self-assessment. There are a vari-
ety of ways this may play out on a daily basis, but considering classroom
discussions as an example, it is often likely that the student who speaks
first and most confidently (regardless of the substance of the comment)
receives greater validation than the student who takes her time, considers
her words, and then shares (perhaps tentatively) a comment that moves
the entire class community to a higher order of thinking. Unfortunately, it
may be equally likely that she never shares her carefully crafted comment
at all.
Many researchers have attributed the gender differences regarding con-
fidence to the scripts inherent in the social construction of gender (for
more information, see Clance and Imes24 and Shipman and Kay25). Some
scholars have argued that it is simply a matter of girls and women believing
in themselves—that girls and women can potentially counteract the impos-
ter phenomenon by believing in their own worth (see Kay and Shipman26;
Sandberg27). Even though healthy self-esteem is always a good trait, the
“imposter phenomenon” and “confidence gap” are deeply rooted gender
scripts. Addressing and potentially counteracting these gender dynamics
is a matter of systemic and systematic social change rather than positive
self-talk. Jessica Valenti,28 for example, has recently offered a critical take
on the confidence disparity between male and female students. Valenti
argues that gender scripts begin in childhood when toy aisles suggest pos-
sible futures, with girls being pushed toward a Barbie Dream House ideal
and boys seeing toys geared toward electronics, science, and engineering.
These gender scripts move to the classroom as well. “Adolescent girls—
especially girls of color—are given less teacher attention in the classroom
than their male peers. A full 56% of female students report being sexually
harassed.”29 The news is replete with incidents of sexual assault on college
campuses, which go largely unreported and unpunished. Valenti highlights
gender inequality and harassment in American culture as the primary rea-
son female students underrate their abilities. She closes by explaining that
the “confidence gap” or “imposter phenomenon” is not a personal defect
so much as “a reflection of a culture that gives women no reason to feel
self-assured.”30 Students—the ones who show up in our classrooms on a
daily basis—are products of this culture, and the gender scripts they have
learned have great implications in an active, engaged learning environ-
ment.31 When faculty members ask students to participate meaningfully
in classroom discussion, they may find that even the brightest female stu-
dents falter, questioning their abilities and attributing previous academic
successes to “luck.” Or, if faculty members ask students to self-assess their
participation in class discussions or teamwork exercises, hardworking and
competent students may underrate their performances and impede their
own academic success. This outcome was true in my own classroom.
There is a wealth of information about how female and male students
may engage differently in a classroom setting, and while it can be useful
to review this advice as faculty members prepare to enter the classroom
each semester, it is important not to make sweeping generalizations based
on gender identity. Teaching centers offer resources to faculty regarding
gendered performance in the classroom, which acknowledges that female
students may interact differently than male students. Columbia University’s
Graduate School of Arts and Sciences notes for faculty that even when
270 A.L. IRVIN
female students participate in class, “these students are more likely to [1]
be interrupted before they complete their response (sometimes by other
female students); [2] make their statements less loudly and at less length;
and [3] express their ideas in a more hesitant, tentative, indirect, less asser-
tive, or more polite manner.”32 Likewise, the University of Virginia’s Center
for Teaching Excellence has a Teaching a Diverse Student Body33 handbook
that directly notes the confidence disparity between male and female stu-
dents, and argues that this behavior may result in differential treatment by
faculty. Different treatment may include faculty providing less mentoring,
less encouragement to stay in certain majors or disciplines, less selection
for research projects, and less recommendations for other opportunities.34
These examples offer snapshots that highlight how gender dynamics may
play out in the collegiate classroom. But both texts offer this advice with the
caveat that even though this information is evidence-based, instructors must
be careful to avoid generalizing students based on a performance of gender
or a student’s self-disclosed gender identity (for more information regarding
gender performance, see Lorber35 and Butler36). For example, not all men
speak up in class or dominate conversations, and not all women are silent. As
argued in the University of Virginia handbook, “Assuming all members of a
group think alike robs people of their individuality.”37 Instructors should be
careful not to generalize male and female student experiences; not all men
and women approach classroom communities in the same way.
As the above sources illustrate, instructors should not essentialize stu-
dents based on gender; gender identity and performance are complex and
deeply individual, so making assumptions or generalizations can be poten-
tially damaging to a classroom dynamic. It is particularly important to
pay attention to gender patterns of participation in the classroom, espe-
cially when the majority of classrooms are often comprised of women.
When women are the majority, it might be easy to overlook the nuances
of participation. But the knowledge that, as a group, male and female stu-
dents rate their performances differently, respond differently in class dis-
cussion, and interact differently in group settings will be beneficial when
planning active, engaged classroom exercises. Instructors may employ this
knowledge when they design assignments, and this information may help
them approach classroom interactions with a greater awareness of gender
dynamics. How, then, can instructors intentionally consider the gender
dynamics that influence how male and female students respond differently
to the active, engaged pedagogies they are employing on a daily basis?
For answers, I turn to the tenets of feminist pedagogy. As a pedagogical
method that shares with feminism a commitment to equality and challeng-

ing the status quo of gender dynamics in society, the practices of feminist
pedagogy may offer some answers.
Feminist Pedagogy
A definition of feminist pedagogy can be hard to nail down, perhaps in
part because it is hard to get agreement on a definition of “feminism.”
Many practitioners of feminist pedagogy prefer inclusive, pluralistic terms
like “pedagogies” or “feminisms.” These terms highlight the multiple
voices, diverse narratives, and cultural differences that come together in
the name of equality. It is not uncommon, in fact, to find scholars who
resist the very act of defining feminist pedagogy. For example, in A Room
of Whose Own? Lessons from Feminist Classroom Narratives, Paula Treichler
resists defining feminist pedagogy for her own audience:
“I am not sure that there is or should be such a thing as ‘feminist peda-
gogy’ as constituted by a set of practices: chairs in a circle, first names,
collaborative agenda setting, and (as much as literature puts it) collec-
tive revisioning of the production of knowledge…many feminists are not
comfortable with these practices.”38 Treichler simultaneously confirms the
moves many feminist instructors make and contests them as inherently
“feminist.” Perhaps more accurately, she contests that every instructor
who self-identifies as feminist would feel comfortable with these practices.
Still, though, a “collective revisoning of the production of knowledge,”39
as Treichler puts it, seems to dominate definitions of feminist pedagogy. In
Feminist Sophistics: Teaching with an Attitude, Dale Bauer and Susan Jarratt
posited that what feminist instructors do is “offer counter hegemonic
explanations of the way things are.”40 Bauer and Jarratt are less focused
on how one might go about enacting feminist pedagogy than Treichler,41
but the focus on a collective, inclusive community of knowledge remains.
Jarratt has argued elsewhere that there are some things all feminist pedago-
gies seem to share: “the decentering or sharing of authority, the recogni-
tion of students as sources of knowledge, and a focus on processes over
products.”42 But as a colleague of mine asked recently, “Isn’t that just good
teaching?” And she has a point—Jarratt’s description of student agency,
responsibility, and application sounds a lot like research-based teaching
methods. The difference is that feminist pedagogy not only recognizes
these methods as beneficial to student learning but also sees them as a way
to challenge the status quo by privileging different ways of knowing.
272 A.L. IRVIN
It may be obvious by now that I am assuming a direct connection

between feminism and feminist pedagogy. But must educators self-identify
as feminist to borrow strategies from feminist pedagogy? Not necessarily.
Feminist pedagogy was born out of personal and political commitment to
equality and focuses on structures of individual identity and social privi-
lege—at its heart, feminist pedagogy merges the personal, political, and
professional—but to borrow a phrase from bell hooks: feminism is for
everybody. I extend this inclusion to feminist pedagogy.
The personal politics of the instructor may be irrelevant, but I would
be remiss if I did not acknowledge that, as a method seeking to enact a
commitment to equality in the classroom, individuals who share one out-
side of it may be most comfortable with feminist pedagogy practices. The
methods Treicher43 and Bauer and Jarratt44 share above are fairly com-
mon: sitting in circles, decentering authority, helping students find agency
in classroom practices. In fact, they sound a lot like the active, engaged
methods included in flipped, team-based, problem-based, and collabora-
tive pedagogies. There are two practices inherent in feminist pedagogy,
however that are not discussed as often or widely: transparency and a heu-
ristics of inclusivity. In the final portion of this chapter, I discuss these two
elements and explore some ways in which they may help empower and
engage both male and female students in an active, engaged classroom.
In terms of student learning, transparency can be key. Explaining to
students why they have been asked to do something—how it will help
them learn or succeed in later assignments or positions—can go a long
way in terms of promoting student buy-in to projects or classroom exer-
cises. Transparency is also a key element in feminist pedagogy, though
practitioners may interpret it a little differently. For the feminist pedagogy
practitioner, transparency can also mean a series of personal disclosures.
I have a colleague, for example, who relishes “coming out” to her stu-
dents as feminist. She makes her personal politics plain. Other instructors,
myself included, may not be so comfortable laying bare the intricacies of
their personal and political leanings. But there may be a middle ground,
which entails disclosing personal commitments to equality and social jus-
tice as they relate to classroom practices. Transparency in terms of our
methods and their intersections with gender dynamics may be a useful
strategy to enable students of all genders to succeed in an active, engaged
classroom. So, for example, when I implemented my Participation and
Preparedness self-assessment practice and noticed the disparity between
the self-assessments of male and female students, I decided to take the rel-
evant research to my classroom. I shared with them some of the research

I presented in this chapter, and we discussed how this dynamic of female
students underrating their performances and abilities and male students
overrating their contributions may play out in their own lives, specifically
the current semester. Initially, I shared this information in a Women and
Gender Studies course, so the connection to course content emerged
organically, but I have shared it in subsequent semesters as I taught English
and Literature courses. It is not necessary to belabor the issue, and it does
not have to become a focal point of the course, but acknowledging that a
class that includes implementing active, engaged learning strategies for a
specific reason and then discussing how men and women may engage with
these strategies differently can go a long way in terms of student comfort,
community, and success.
I mention above that inclusivity—or what I am terming a heuristics of
inclusivity—is not discussed as often or widely as other practices in femi-
nist pedagogy narratives. It is perhaps more accurate to say that research-
ers do not always discuss this element explicitly, because inclusivity can
seem inherent to the practice. Inclusivity, some may argue, is the reason
why practitioners adopt these methods. It can be important to make this
narrative explicit, though, because educators who are new to the method
may come to this practice seeking this information. Feminist pedagogy
can provide instructors an entry point to ideas of gender performance
theory, social constructivism, and intersectionality (for more information
about these ideas, see Lorber45 and Butler46). A working knowledge of
these concepts can be useful for educators hoping to understand how gen-
der dynamics may influence the active, engaged pedagogies they hope to
implement in their classes. For example, in much of this chapter I have
discussed gender in binary terms, frequently referencing the men and
women in our classrooms. But there are individuals who do not subscribe
to a binary gender identity. Feminist pedagogy, with its roots in gender
performance theory, may help instructors who encounter students with
non-binary gender identities in their classes.
If instructors open a dialogue about gender dynamics and active,
engaged learning, like I encourage above, students may volunteer infor-
mation about their own gender identities. Just last semester, I had two stu-
dents who performed “maleness” on a daily basis, meaning they showed
up in the classroom every day and appeared to me and to other students
to identify as men. But upon opening a discussion about gender in our
class community and how gender dynamics may intersect with the active,
274 A.L. IRVIN
engaged pedagogies we would employ, both informed the class commu-

nity they self-identified as female and preferred the female pronoun. A
background in feminist theory and feminist pedagogy enabled me to con-
sciously and intentionally respond to these two students (in front of 34
others), asking permission to explain gender identity more fully to the
class and modeling appropriate moves and responses for the other stu-
dents present. Of course, instructors do not need a working knowledge of
gender theory and feminist pedagogy to respond with understanding and
kindness, but drawing on a heuristics of inclusivity may allow instructors
to approach discussions of gender as teachable moments.
Summary
Active, engaged practice is key to deep intentional learning. Indeed, it is in
the “doing” of a discipline that students gain the most traction for lifelong
learning. As these practices gain rapid popularity, educators must proceed
cautiously. Even though active, engaged learning is powerful, it also pres-
ents distinct challenges in terms of gender dynamics. As instructors, we
should be careful not to generalize students based on gender, but we
should also be careful to keep in mind that confidence and self-perception
of abilities vary greatly across gendered lines. As women become the “new
majority” on many campuses, it might be easy to lose sight of the ways in
which gender dynamics can influence the classroom environment, but the
reality is that this shift makes a focus on gender in higher education even
more important. While educators must make timely decisions based on
the students in front of them, drawing on the transparency and inclusivity
of feminist pedagogy may help cultivate an environment in which students
of all genders can succeed.
Notes
1. Barr and Tagg, “From Teaching to Learning—A New Paradigm
for Undergraduate Education,” 13.
2. Lorber, Pardoxes of Gender.
3. Butler, Undoing Gender.
4. Sandberg, Lean In: Women Work, and the Will to Lead.
5. Ibid., 32.
6. Ibid., 32.
7. Barkley, Student Engagement Techniques: A Handbook for College

Faculty, 3.
8. Meyers and Jones, Promoting Active Learning: Strategies for the
College Classroom, xi.
9. Doyle, Helping Students Learn in a Learner-Centered Environment,
xv.
10. McManus, Leaving the Lectern: Cooperative Learning and the
Critical First Days of Students Working in Groups.
11. Weimer, Learner-Centered Teaching: Five Key Changes to Practice, ix.
12. Bergman and Sams, Flip Your Classroom: Reach Every Student in
Every Classroom, Every Day.
13.
Michaelson, Knight, and Fink, Team-Based Learning: A
Transformative Use of Small Groups in College Teaching.
14. Barell, Problem-based learning: An Inquiry Approach.
15. Doyle and Zakrajsek, The New Science of Learning: How to Learn
in Harmony with Your Brain.
16. Peterson and Gorman, “Strategies to Address Common Challenges
when Teaching in an Active Learning Classroom.”
17. Major, Harris, and Zakrajsek, Teaching for Learning: 101

Intentionally Designed Educational Activities to Put Students on the
Path to Success, 51.
18. Clance and Imes, “The Imposter Phenomenon in High Achieving
Women: Dynamics and Therapeutic Intervention.”
19. Kay and Shipman, The Confidence Code: The Science and Art of Self-
Assurance—What Women Should Know.
20. I want to acknowledge that essentializing or generalizing experi-
ences and behaviors based on gender can be dangerous and poten-
tially destructive in a classroom community; I address this in detail
later in the chapter.
Women: Dynamics and Therapeutic Intervention,” 1.
22. Ibid., 2.
Assurance—What Women Should Know, xx.
Women: Dynamics and Therapeutic Intervention.”
Assurance—What Women Should Know.
26. Ibid.
276 A.L. IRVIN
27. Sandberg, Lean In: Women, Work and the Will to Lead.
28. Valenti, “The Female ‘Confidence Gap’ is a Sham.”
29. Ibid., 6.
30. Ibid., 5.
31. I recognize that not all students present in an American classroom
were raised in an American culture. Indeed, an exploration of how
cultural differences interface with active, engaged methods in a
collegiate classroom is a worthy one. Unfortunately, it is beyond
the scope of this current discussion.
32. Columbia University, Graduate School of Arts and Sciences

Teaching Center, Gender Issues in the College Classroom, para. 2.
33. Little, Teaching a Diverse Student Body: Practical Strategies for
Enhancing Our Students’ Learning.
34. Ibid.
35. Lorber, Paradoxes of Gender.
37. Little, Teaching a Diverse Student Body: Practical Strategies for
Enhancing Our Students’ Learning, 1.
38. Treichler, “A Room of Whose Own? Lessons from Feminist

Classroom Narratives,” 88.
39. Ibid., 88.
40. Bauer and Jarratt, “Feminist Sophistics: Teaching with an

Attitude,” 149.

Classroom Narratives.”
42. Jarratt, “Feminist Pedagogy,” 115.

Classroom Narratives.”
44. Bauer and Jarratt, “Feminist Sophistics: Teaching with an

Attitude.”
45. Lorber, Paradoxes of Gender.
CHAPTER 13
Changing Views of Self-as-Leader: What

Female College Students Tell Us
Brenda L. McKenzie and Susan V. Iverson
Women outnumber men as college students in US higher education

today,1 yet, they continue to be grossly under-represented in student
leadership positions.2 Leadership has been the focus of ample scholarship,
and has revealed much about student leadership traits, characteristics, and
styles or the effectiveness of leadership initiatives for college students.3
Researchers have also examined differences in leadership by gender,4
feminine and masculine characteristics of leadership,5 and perceptions of
women’s ability to lead.6 Few of the studies examining gender and leader-
ship, however, included college students. Additionally, less attention has
been given to how individuals (i.e., college students) develop their leader-
ship identity,7 and female college students’ leadership identity in particular
remains under-studied. Higher education institutions must instill a sense
of leadership self-efficacy in college students, meaning develop a belief in
B.L. McKenzie (*)

Higher Education Administration, Vanderbilt University, Peabody College,
Nashville, Tennessee, USA
S.V. Iverson
Manhattanville College, School of Education, Purchase, NY, USA

278 B.L. MCKENZIE AND S.V. IVERSON
their ability to be leaders, so that graduates are prepared for their roles,
and leadership challenges, in the workforce and society.8
This chapter describes the findings of a grounded theory study that
sought to understand the process by which female college students
develop a leadership identity.9 With the increases in female college stu-
dent enrollment, it can be easy to overlook their experiences as leaders
or if they are even participating in leadership roles. Yet it is critical to
examine the leadership identity development of female college stu-
dents as a way to understand how we can change the gendered views
of leadership for the future. Drawing upon a feminist lens, the chapter
critically analyzes how this investigation of women’s leadership iden-
tity can expand our understanding of the effect of gendered concep-
tions of leadership on women, and the ways in which existing practices
(may) limit women’s involvement in leadership. Stemming from this
critique, we suggest implications for leadership development of college
students.
Leadership and Identity
Volumes have been written on leadership. Since the early 1900s, this
body of work has been rooted in assumptions that leadership consisted of
(perhaps innate) characteristics and traits, and uncertainty existed about
whether leadership could be learned.10 Scholars throughout the twentieth
century have “pursued relentlessly” the notion of a “grand theory” of
leadership,11 giving rise to many models and theories, such as relational,
transactional, political, and symbolic, among others.12 These expand-
ing views regarding the construction of leadership resulted in the belief
that leadership can be taught, and thus one’s identity as a leader can be
developed.
A facet of the leadership literature has investigated the process by which
leadership identity develops.13 College years are a time when students
explore who they are, experimenting with different roles and deciding
what to incorporate into their persona. There is a body of work, generally
referred to as student development, which has generated numerous theo-
ries, from psychosocial to cognitive structural, and some may seem closely
related, if not essential, to the self-efficacy needed to be a leader.14 For
instance, Baxter Magolda’s theory of self-authorship is described as the
“internal capacity to define one’s beliefs, identity, and social relations”15;
yet, little attention has been given to the leadership identity development
CHANGING VIEWS OF SELF-AS-LEADER: WHAT FEMALE… 279
process of college students. One instrumental grounded theory study16

resulted in a six-stage Leadership Identity Development (LID) Model
describing how students moved from a leader-centric view of leadership to
one that viewed it as a relational process. Additional research has extended
the LID model, focusing on first-year students,17 on the role of high school
experiences,18 on students involved in fraternities and sororities,19 and on
early- to mid-career professional women.20 What has not been examined is
the role gender may have on leadership identity development, specifically
in female college students.
A growing body of scholarship has explored the role of gender in lead-
ership, specifically women as leaders. Such studies illuminate differences in
approaches to leadership, and have identified women as more relational,
collaborative, or oriented toward social responsibility.21 Additionally,
feminist scholars have offered various critiques of (dominant) conceptu-
alizations of leadership, illuminating how its construction is rooted in a
masculinist perspective.22 Findings from such research have highlighted
structural impediments that prevent women from reaching top leadership
positions in the workforce. Few studies, however, have focused specifically
on female college students and leadership.
Whitt23 was one of the first to research college women specifically. Her
study, conducted in the context of women’s colleges, revealed a consensus-
building leadership style in which everyone was valued equally, and a real-
ization, on the part of students involved in this qualitative study, of the
need to give back to the institution that provided them with opportuni-
ties. Haber24 and Haber-Curran25 built upon Whitt’s26 findings to enhance
the understanding of the experiences of female college student leaders.
Findings from these studies suggest women grapple with the challenges
of balancing relationship-oriented versus task-oriented behaviors, the role
and impact of organizational and environmental context, and how to nav-
igate perceptions regarding gender roles and leadership. Their findings
echo previous research about women in the workforce, and the role of
gender in the organization.27
A Feminist Perspective
This chapter draws upon a feminist lens; such a perspective attends to the
“basic significance of gender… accounting for the everyday experiences
of women which have been neglected.”28 This perspective posits that
dominant (positivist) ways of knowing and experiencing the world have
excluded women’s “personal experience” as sources of knowledge.29 As a

framework for research, feminism aims to give voice to women’s experi-
ences; seeks to reveal and overcome androcentric biases; and uses research
as a tool for emancipation and social change.30
Researchers of leadership who adopt a feminist perspective raise ques-
tions about (taken-for-granted) language and concepts. For instance,
feminist scholars view leaders not as solo architects, but as coordinators,
facilitators, and collaborators,31 and often redefine traditional terms (orga-
nization, leader, manager) associated with leadership. Some examples are
the view of leadership as a “collective enterprise”32 or as a “collaborative
process”33 or as a collaborative endeavor.34
In addition, a feminist perspective on leadership allows us “to hear
women’s voices that long have been held in silence.”35 Thurber and
Zimmerman identify that the use of voice can be “personal” (feeling
empowered and validated through self-reflection); “collaborative” (speak-
ing and sharing with others); and “public” (becoming “agents for change
rather than targets of change”).36 This use of voice is tied to the eman-
cipatory emphasis in feminist leadership: a commitment to social justice,
equity, and change for the betterment of all.37
We align with those feminist scholars who argue that leadership devel-
opment cannot continue with the “ungendered innocence”38 that has
guided this work historically. As women’s numbers in college and the
workforce continue to grow, gender disparities still persist, including in
leadership roles. Women remain under-represented in positions of lead-
ership in the workforce, as evidenced by the fact that only 27 % of chief
executive officers are women, and there is a disproportional number of
female administrative leaders in fields such as human resources (72 %)
and K-12 and college educational administration (64 %) administrators,39
narrowing even more for senior college administrators with women com-
prising only 26 % of college presidents.40 Thus, an understanding of how
gender matters in the development of leadership identity is needed (how
female college students “do gender” as leaders, what barriers female stu-
dents encounter that hinder their leadership aspirations, for example). A
critical examination of leadership development is also warranted to inter-
rogate how dominant approaches to leadership identity development may
constrain women’s aspirations and possibilities for leadership. In what
follows, we share findings from McKenzie’s41 grounded theory study
of traditional-aged female college students’ development of leadership
identity. We then draw upon a feminist lens to critically analyze the role of
gender and advance implications for leadership development of (female)

college students.
Methods
McKenzie’s42 grounded theory study sought to understand how
traditional-aged (18- to 22-year-old) female undergraduate college stu-
dents developed a leadership identity. Traditional-aged students were iden-
tified as participants because of several specific life experiences that may
have impacted their views of leadership (e.g., September 11, 2001, elec-
tion of the first African American US president, impact of social media).
Although people in other age groups also experienced these events, those
individuals would have experienced additional historical or cultural events
that may have impacted their views and self-perceptions of leadership in
different ways.
Utilizing Charmaz’s43 constructivist grounded theory method, the
experiences of the students were explored as a means to understand their
leadership identity development process. In learning the students’ stories,
their voices were important to the construction of the emerging model.
A process was followed of working with the participants to make sense
of their insights and experiences in order to mutually construct an initial
understanding of an emerging model of leadership identity development.
This approach allowed for “tak[ing] into account how the researcher and
the research participants’ standpoints and positions affect [their] inter-
pretations.”44 The sample included 20 students (three sophomores, five
juniors, and 12 seniors), from a large, public, research university in the
Midwest; racial composition consisted of four African Americans, one
Latina, and 15 Caucasian students which was reflective of the institution’s
demographic composition. Participants were traditional-aged (between
the ages of 18 and 22) female undergraduate students who exhibited lead-
ership ability, either as students currently in leadership positions/roles or
as students who were perceived by advisors/supervisors to have leadership
potential. Additional sampling criteria included seeking participants from
across class standing from a variety of majors, and from a variety of types
of student involvement opportunities (i.e., not all the same type of orga-
nization, such as sororities; or not all involved in residence hall activities).
Potential participants were identified through recommendations from stu-
dent organization advisors or student leader supervisors with whom the
researcher had a previous professional relationship. Invitations were sent
to the students via email, outlining the study, informing them of who
had recommended them, and inviting them to participate along with a
demographic questionnaire. The students who participated were not all in
traditional, elected officer positions; some were student leader staff (i.e.,
resident assistant, orientation leader), student athletes, student employees
in a department, or volunteers for mentoring programs.
McKenzie’s45 definition of female included cisgender students (for
whom gender identity aligns with biological sex) and transgender stu-
dents (for whom gender identity or roles do not align with biological
sex)46 thus allowing students who by sex or gender identified as female to
participate in the study. Female was not defined for the individuals who
recommended students, thus leaving up to them how they chose to iden-
tify students to recommend for participation.
Each participant completed a 60 to 90 minute semi-structured inter-
view,4748 exploring how the participants’ experiences and influences (peo-
ple or events) in high school and college impacted their leadership identity
development, how their view of leadership evolved from high school to
now, and how this leadership view influenced self-identification as a leader.
Transcripts of the interviews served as the primary data for analysis.
McKenzie49 used line-by-line coding “to look for what is happening
in the data,”50 and to ensure ideas were not overlooked by reviewing an
entire response at once. The next phase of the process involved focused
coding to develop an initial set of categories. McKenzie determined which
“initial codes make the most analytic sense to categorize [the] data.”51
The themes that developed through the focused coding process led to
the final phase of analysis: theoretical coding which identified “possible
relationships between categories… [that were] developed.”52 This process
of coding and analysis continued until saturation had been reached, when
no new themes emerged and no new connections were made between
categories.
Female Leadership Identity Development Model

A four-phase model of leadership identity development emerged from
the data. In this model, students moved from views of (1) leadership as
external to themselves to (2) leadership as positional to (3) collaborative
to (4) becoming social change agents. Phase one, awareness and explora-
tion, was evident in the students’ understanding that leaders were other
people. Students in phase two, leader identified, began to acknowledge
that they were capable of being a leader and to identify themselves in that
way. For most students, the transition to phase two occurred when they
went to college and were elected to their first college leadership position.
Students at phase three, leadership differentiated, began to view leadership
as more collaborative and began to understand how leadership could be
both positional and non-positional. These students recognized they could
lead from anywhere within an organization. Phase four, generativity, was
more focused on aspects of encouraging future leaders and bringing about
social change than an internal focus on the students’ individual leadership
identity development. This phase involved an understanding that they had
a responsibility to develop other students as leaders. While some of the
findings are reflective of the Komives et al.53 study, McKenzie’s research
focused specifically on understanding female students’ leadership identity
development. There is also an initial indication of a potential relationship
between leadership identity development and student development theory
(i.e., self-authorship) which needs to be further explored. In what fol-
lows, we elaborate on each of these phases, with explicit attention to how
gender matters in relation to leadership identity development. Within this
model, students’ awareness of whether or how being a woman mattered
to their conceptualization of leadership shifted from limited identification
to deepened consciousness of how leadership is gendered. The following
sections will address findings specific to this identity development process.
Awareness and Exploration In the initial phase of their leadership identity

development, students did not have a clear view of what leadership meant
to them. As Leigh reflected, “I don’t know if I really had a clear idea of
what a leader was in high school,” or as Leila stated, “I feel like I don’t
have a good idea of what actual leadership is or what it’s supposed to
be.” Students in this stage had a hard time defining what leadership was;
as Catherine observed, “There’s no right or there’s no one definition of
leadership, I think.” Their understandings of leadership were remote and
distant; the identity of leader was separate from self.
Students, mostly reflecting on their pre-college selves, did not perceive

themselves as leaders. They lacked clarity about what it meant to be, or
what was, a leader, and this contributed to their lack of awareness of their
early involvement in leadership. Students held roles in high school, but did
not associate those roles with leadership. For instance, Melissa reflected,
“I was the captain of our cheerleading squad [in high school]. And it
wasn’t because I was a good leader, it was because I was a very good cheer-
leader, which are two totally different things.” Coupled with this lack of
awareness was little if any recognition that gender mattered. If leadership
was gendered, this was through examples of male leaders visible in the
media. At this phase, students did not perceive being female as having an
impact on who they were as leaders.
Leader Identified As students moved into leadership roles in college, an

understanding of leadership emerged; however, it was initially viewed as
positional, and that with a position came authority and decision making
responsibility. As stated by Leila, “you feel like you have some sort of
authority to talk to that person.” These women were also learning that
through their positions they could use their voice; they saw that a posi-
tion enabled them to speak. As Gretchen noted, “you get to, like, com-
mand stuff,” and Janice reflected, “I like to tell people what to do. I’m
very bossy.” Yet their view of how to use their voice was framed based on
traditional, dominant (masculine) leader characteristics, reflected by word
choices such as command and tell.
Not all viewed leadership as only positional; some observed that anyone
is capable of being a leader. Whereas Leila (above) saw leadership as an
authority that came from a position, others recognized that the self could
be an authority, meaning that leadership characteristics could be embod-
ied. For instance, Naomi described that leadership could mean “being
the one who steps up” or being “somebody who just jumps in and does
something. You don’t have to have a label or a title to be a leader.” Others
added that “being a leader can be anything…a random student could be a
leader” (Wendy), or “anybody has the potential to be a leader” (Bridget).
Additionally, using one’s voice was not only possible through positions,
but, as Joan noted, “being a leader is knowing when you need to voice
your opinion and when you need to just follow somebody else, and know
when to step back.”
Greater awareness of gender and leadership emerged in this phase.
Students acknowledged that women face challenges as leaders in today’s
society. For instance, Holly noted that women have to work harder to
gain recognition as a leader: “You have to prove yourself more to the male
that you’re just as equal as them, you’re just as good a leader as they are.”
Further, Bridget observed that “people don’t really view women as leaders
a lot.” Others observed different expectations placed on women leaders.
For example, Cassie noted, “there’s different expectations between a male

leader and a female leader. I think males can get away with a lot more
than females can,” and Samantha stated, “I just feel like as women, I feel
we go through more stuff. I feel like men have the easier route.” Finally,
a relational dimension of leadership was emerging. For instance, Faith
asserted, “it’s very important to me, too, to just pay attention, to give
other people the opportunity to move into these roles.” Leila described
“empathy and understanding and just being relatable” as important char-
acteristics. Another participant said, “Women are naturally nurturing but
some female leaders know that that’s a norm and they try to suppress it”
(Joan). While most students did not associate these (feminized) charac-
teristics with gender (or being female), their awareness of gender grew
deeper in the next phase.
Leadership Differentiated Students began to understand and recognize

that not all leaders were or should be the same. As Leigh stated, “I real-
ize there are different kinds of leaders.” This differentiation of leadership
meant leaders could be positional or not, and that students were viewing
and embracing themselves performing leadership. They recognized the
diversity and complexity of doing leadership, and this empowered them to
identify self-as-leader.
Notably, at this phase, an aspect of this differentiation was a deeper

understanding of the role that gender played. For instance, several partici-
pants reflected on the power of words and labels on their self-identification
as leaders. Leigh, for example, indicated that being called “bossy” impacted
whether she would assume leadership roles in high school and college; she
reflected, “looking back, was I discouraged from being the one to take
action and kind of help decide what we were going to do because I was a
girl?”
Gender, the participants observed, mattered; gender differentiated
leadership. Students recognized that certain types of campus organiza-
tions attracted male leaders while others attracted female leaders. Leila
stated, “If it’s more helping or social or humanitarian, I see women; but if
it’s more business or even STEM, I feel like there’s a lot of male represen-
tation over women representation.” Others observed that female student
leaders were judged on appearance, having to look well put together to be
taken seriously as opposed to male leaders showing up oblivious to their
appearance. An observation from Melissa exemplified this point:
If I go into a meeting and I don’t look put together, if I go into a formal meet-
ing and I’m wearing sweatpants, or I’m not wearing a dress shirt or a dress
of some sort, or if my hair is all crazy or I’m not wearing make-up or some-
thing like that, I’m honestly not taken as seriously as I am when I walk in, I’m
put together, I have on at least a blazer and a nice pair of slacks, something
like that. So being a woman, you have to look put together when you are in
those kinds of leadership roles and positions or you won’t be taken seriously.
… Whereas sometimes men, they can walk in wearing a pair of khaki pants
and a button down shirt and call it a day. [emphasis added]
Yet, emerging from this complex, expanded, and differentiated under-

standing of leadership was confidence in their identity as a leader. As
Cassie realized, “I didn’t give myself enough credit before…I can actually
now see myself as a leader.”
Generativity Emerging from this differentiated, but also integrated

sense of self-as-leader, was a commitment to larger purposes and accept-
ing responsibility for developing others. As students became confident in
themselves and who they were as leaders, they began to reflect on larger
community and/or societal needs and to identify their role in addressing
said needs, particularly around issues of gender and race. Rhonda illus-
trated this conceptualization when she used her major as a springboard to
raising awareness, writing a play that highlighted traditional female roles
and challenging the audience’s thinking about the meaning of those roles.
This change in orientation was reflected in both the participants’ desire to
enhance others’ leadership capacity, and their realization that they could
make change happen.
Students recognized their responsibility to lead by example and be role

models for others as illustrated by Grace: “[I am] mindful that I’m exhibit-
ing what I expect of younger girls on this campus, or my peers.” Increased
self-efficacy and confidence in their leadership abilities led students at this
phase to internalize self-as-leader into their identities. Recognition of hav-
ing a voice and exploration of ways to effectively use it began to emerge.
Bridget shared, “I’m not afraid to stand alone, and so if I firmly believe in
something, I will stand alone if I have to.”
An expanding social consciousness coupled with self-efficacy yielded
the capacity to work as agents for change and some participants identified
this social change with their gender identity; that their identity as a female
leader meant they would encounter, and must challenge, stereotypes, and
they must mentor others to cross boundaries. For example, Samantha
shared, “I have to figure out a way how I could be able to change soci-
ety…What are we teaching our girls?” Rhonda stated, “I especially think
I’m such an advocate for young women being taught leadership roles and
encouraged more because it seems like it’s just a man’s world to be a
leader, and that is so unfair.” Grace, noting that she has a responsibility to
sustain a historical legacy of women helping women, reflected,
There’s a network of women that have already done it…They’ve already

fought for students of color to do this and that. They’ve done a lot of legwork
for us to be in positions that we are in…. So for them to do that legwork
inspires me to make the same changes for the next generation. [emphasis added]
Students who had transitioned to phase four worked to bring about

change and showed their abilities to be trailblazers. As Samantha boldly
stated, “I am not afraid to speak my mind and have a voice.”
Discussion and Implications
In sum, the findings from this study revealed a process through which
female students transitioned in the development of their identities as lead-
ers, and that gender mattered in that process. Reflective of themes that cut
across the phases above, we consider some implications.
Deconstructing and Reconceptualizing Leadership and Identity Many

participants noted that labels, stereotypes, and gendered constructions
of leadership constrained their understanding of and identification with
being a leader. Previous experiences of being labeled “bossy” had an initial
negative impact on students’ belief in their ability to be leaders. Echoing
Sheryl Sandberg,54 we advocate to ban the word “bossy” to ensure that
women do not have this negatively gendered legacy from their youth.
Additionally, dominant (masculine) conceptions of leadership limited
women’s belief that (positional) leadership was available and accessible to
them. Boatwright and Egidio55 have observed the implications of this on
women’s leadership aspirations. They found that college women who con-
sidered themselves fitting more of the traditional feminine gender stereo-
type (i.e., helpful, compassionate, soft-spoken) were less likely to aspire to
leadership. Dominant conceptions of leadership must be problematized;
gendered assumptions and stereotypes about leadership must be made vis-

ible and challenged; and alternative conceptualizations of leadership must
be advanced.
Consider how reconceptualizing leadership as collective action empow-

ers female students to demonstrate leadership outside the bounds of
position, and to adopt relational and collaborative approaches to leader-
ship. Further, leadership as a plural versus solo act can align with one’s
sense of responsibility to initiate change. Individuals can enact change
within the existing organizational structures, or they may adopt a more
activist orientation as grassroots leaders.56
Additionally, as Owen observed, “leadership development and human
development are inextricably intertwined.”57 Thus, as leadership identity
is problematized and reconceptualized, so too must relationships to stu-
dent identity development be explored. Future research should investigate
how other dimensions of identity (e.g., race, sexuality) intersect to pro-
duce differentiated performances of leadership. While this study focused
on women, an interrogation of gender identity and leadership is neces-
sary for all genders: cisgender and gender non-conforming women and
men. Exploration of potential intersections with psychosocial or cognitive-
structural theories of student development are also needed. For instance,
one might investigate the strength of relationship between leadership
identity and self-authorship. Baxter Magolda58 identifies three elements of
self-authorship—trusting the internal voice, building an internal founda-
tion, and securing internal commitments—which resonate with the find-
ings described in this chapter.
Developing Self-Efficacy In students’ development of leader identity, they

identified growing confidence in self as a dimension of their identifica-
tion of self-as-leader. However, we must observe the ways in which self-
confidence became self-efficacy. Sloma-Williams, McDade, Richman, and
Morahan differentiate these terms, noting that confidence “refers to a
positive belief about oneself in general, a self-assurance that arises from
appreciating one’s own abilities;” however, self-efficacy “refers to believ-
ing in one’s sense of agency.” 59 According to Bandura, “confidence is a
catchword” whereas self-efficacy is a “belief in one’s agentive capabilities,
that one can produce given levels of attainment.”60 The students who
reached generativity had been able to explore aspects of who they were
as females and who they were as leaders and bring those two identities
together, making them stronger and increasing their confidence in their

abilities. We argue that the development of efficacy is critical for leaders in
general, and female-identified leaders in particular.
The development of efficacy can be facilitated in various ways. The

first is through modeling. Connecting female students with strong female
role models should be an aspect of women-only leadership development
programs61 as well as opportunities for students to network with and learn
from women in leadership roles in a range of organizations.62 Providing
some single-sex opportunities for female students to explore what leader-
ship means to them and how they come to identify as a leader with a focus
on supporting and affirming women’s identity, aspirations, and accom-
plishments63 is invaluable.
A second way is by affording students “structured opportunities to
process information in quiet reflection.”64 Many women, as they advance
in leadership roles, encounter “the imposter phenomenon,” which con-
tributes to a “strong belief that they are not intelligent; in fact, they are
convinced that they have fooled anyone who thinks otherwise.”65 Female
college students can easily get caught in this cycle of not believing in
their abilities because they want to fit in and do not want to be judged as
unfeminine. Through self-reflection (e.g., reflective journaling) and dia-
logue with others (e.g., consciousness raising groups), female students can
feel empowered and validated.66
A third approach to facilitating efficacy is finding and using voice. Most
participants described instances of finding and using their voices, as illus-
trated by Samantha who wanted females to embrace their gender identities
and be proud of who they were and used every opportunity given to her
to instill confidence in young women as she shared in this example about
a song she wrote:
And I wrote it to inspire all ages of African American women to help them—
it’s just an empowerment song to basically help them realize that you know
what? You’re beautiful. You’re worth it, and you can accomplish anything
you want in life. Don’t let anyone tell you that you can’t [emphasis added].
Leadership educators must implement strategies through which student

leaders can construct their understanding of self-as-leader. Tarule identi-
fied dialogue as “making knowledge in conversation,”67 and thus dialogue
groups, holding debates and forums, writing letters to the editor of the
campus paper around an issue of importance to the student are all ways to
cultivate and use voice. However, as Sullivan noted, the ability to “freely
contribute” is undermined “in communities marked by inequity—such
as when experts or authority figures dominate the conversation.”68 Thus,
educators must cultivate spaces that will enable equitable participation.
Developing Agents of Change Through their new sense of efficacy and a

recognition of the need to use their voice to do the right thing, students
came to a realization that they could be agents of change, often focusing
initially on what they could do in their immediate environment to create
a potential for a ripple effect in the larger society. Thus, leadership educa-
tors must create opportunities for female students to develop skills and
be leaders as a way to level the playing field for them, on their campuses
and in the world around them. Sowards and Renegar69 define rhetorical
activism to include creating grassroots models of leadership, sharing sto-
ries, and resisting stereotypes and labels. Coupling reflection with this skill
development is vitally important, as learning to be reflective practitioners
enables individuals to critically analyze their decisions and learning.70
As we, the authors, advocate all that must be designed for students to
develop a gendered awareness of self-as-leader, we also acknowledge that
those responsible for leadership education and development must explore
their own assumptions about leadership and about gender. They bring
assumptions and acceptance of socially constructed gender roles to the
work they do. Leadership educators, in academic and co-curricular arenas,
should critically interrogate their curriculum:
–– What readings are assigned? White male authors continue to domi-
nate the scholarship on leadership. Leadership educators who are
concerned about providing a balance of knowledge and experience
to their students must challenge themselves to find writings from
a variety of viewpoints from a variety of voices, including those of
women and people of color.
–– How might oppression be lurking in curriculum? Leadership educa-
tors must be willing to name sexism and other forms of oppression
when it occurs in their programs, such as confronting sexist com-
ments or educating about microaggressions. The latter are “often
unconsciously delivered in the form of subtle snubs or dismissive
looks, gestures, and tones”71 and thus harder to make visible.
–– Do we provide safe and brave spaces? Students need “brave” spaces

(e.g., consciousness raising groups) that “encourage taking risks,”72
as students explore what they know about gender identity and
their acceptance of socially constructed views and develop skills
to challenge those views in themselves first and then in the larger
community.
Making such curricular changes may not be an easy process for leader-
ship educators and will require learning and self-exploration on the part
of these professionals. Although these shifts may present challenges, it
is important for leadership educators to make them in their programs in
order to contribute to students’ leadership identity development.
Conclusion
Leadership identity development is a complex, evolving process, as illus-
trated by the students in this study. Yet, the female participants in this
study also illuminated the ways in which gender matters in the develop-
ment of leadership identity; that female college students in the twenty-first
century are still primarily being exposed to traditional, dominant (mascu-
line) models of leadership and how that exposure may (unintentionally)
prescribe what it means to be effective leaders. This study purposefully
focused on female college students to understand their experiences; how-
ever, by drawing upon a feminist lens, we further sought to identify how
gender mattered in becoming and identifying as a female student leader.
The four-phase model of female leadership identify development that
emerged from this grounded theory study illustrates how female college
students move from a sense of leadership as external to them, to an orien-
tation of generative leadership to enact social change. This fourth phase
aligns with a feminist perspective on leadership in its emphasis on change
for the betterment of all.73 These findings are not just descriptive of the
experiences of the female participants in this study, but advance a theo-
retical framework that can extend to all female college students. Further
inquiry coupled with intersectionality to complicate the gendered views of
leadership is warranted to understand in what ways gendered leadership
identity development is negotiated by women beyond the environment of
college.
In sum, through our use of a feminist lens, we theorized the ways
in which leadership as “gender neutral” may lead to female students’
decreased involvement in leadership, as dominant conceptions and

embodiments implicitly exclude them.74 Through attention to how gender
matters in leadership identity development, we hope that leadership edu-
cators will become more “gender-integrative”75 in leadership education.
As the numbers of female-identified students has grown on college cam-
puses, we must not be deceived that we should no longer give attention
to gender; rather, those who engage in leadership development must give
gender explicit attention to what it means to be and develop as a leader.
We hope such explicit attention will shift leadership development from
“gender neutral” to “gender integrative.” Further, we hope such analyses
adopt a gender lens (inclusive of understanding how masculinity operates
in leadership development), as well as considerations of trans* and other
intersectional subjectivities on the development of leadership identity. A
shift to “gender integrative” should lead to not just parity in terms of the
number of female leaders but to a focus on equity and change.
Notes
1. Council of Economic Advisers. Women’s Participation in Education
and the Workforce: A Whitehouse Report.
2. Boatwright and Egidio, “Psychological Predictors of College
Women’s Leadership Aspirations”; Haber-Curran, “The Delicate
Balancing Act: Challenges and Successes Facing College Student
Women in Formal Leadership Roles”; Leonard and Sigal,
“Empowering Women Student Leaders: A Leadership Development
Model.”
3. Cress, Astin, Zimmerman-Oster, and Burkhardt, “Developmental
Outcomes of College Students’ Involvement in Leadership
Activities”; Patterson, “Influences of Student Organizational
Leadership Experiences in College Students Leadership Behaviors”;
Reichard and Paik, “Developing the Next Generation of Leaders:
Research, Policy, and Practice.”
of the Evidence”; Gage, Mumma, and Fritz, “Exploring the
Bermuda Triangle: Review of Gender, Societal, Team and
Individual Leadership Theories”; Rosener, “Ways Women Lead.”
5. Eagly and Carli, Through the Labyrinth: The Truth about How
Women Become Leaders; Pittinsky, Bacon, and Welle, “The Great
Woman Theory of Leadership? Perils of Positive Stereotypes and
Precarious Pedestals”; Valian, Why So Slow? The Advancement of

Women.
6. Rhode and Kellerman, “Women and Leadership: The State of
Play.”
7. Day and Harrison, “A Multilevel, Identity-based Approach to
Leadership Development”; Lord and Hall, “Identity, Deep
Structure and the Development of Leadership Skill.”
8. Leonard and Sigal, “Empowering Women Student Leaders: A
Leadership Development Model.”; Patterson, “Influences of
Student Organizational Leadership Experiences in College
Students Leadership Behaviors”; Reichard and Paik, “Developing
the Next Generation of Leaders: Research, Policy, and Practice”;
Sagaria, “The Case for Empowering Women as Leaders in Higher
Education”; Schein, “A Global Look at Psychological Barriers to
Women’s Progress in Management.”
9. McKenzie, “Leadership Identity Development in Traditional-aged
Female Undergraduate College Students: A Grounded Theory
Study.”
10. Birnbaum, Bensimon and Neumann, “Leadership in Higher

Education: A Multi-dimensional Approach to Research.”
11. Tierney, Culture and Ideology in Higher Education: Advancing a
Critical Agenda, 109.
12. Kezar, Carducci, and Contreras-McGavin, Rethinking the “L”

Word in Higher Education: The Revolution of Research on Leadership:
ASHE Higher Education Report.
13. Avolio and Hannah, “Developmental Readiness: Accelerating

Leader Development”; Boatwright and Egidio, “Psychological
Predictors of College Women’s Leadership Aspirations”; Day and
Harrison, “A Multilevel, Identity-based Approach to Leadership
Development.”
14. Evans, Forney, Guido, Patton, and Renn, Student Development in
College: Theory, Research, and Practice.
College: Theory, Research, and Practice, 184.
16. Komives, Owen, Longerbeam, Mainella, and Osteen, “Developing
a Leadership Identity: A Grounded Theory.”
17. Shehane, Sturtevant, Moore, and Dooley, “First-year Student

Perceptions Related to Leadership Awareness and Influences.”
18. Komives and Johnson, “The Role of High School Experience in

College Student Leadership Development.”
19. Lawhead, “Leadership Identity Development in Greek Life

Organizations: Lessons Learned.”
20. Gonda, “The Development of Leadership Identity: A Study of
Young, Professional Women.”
21. Chin, “Feminist Leadership: Feminist Visions and Diverse Voices”;
Eagly and Carli, 2003, Through the Labyrinth: The Truth about
How Women Become Leaders; Helgesen, The Female Advantage:
Women’s Ways of Leading; Kezar and Moriarty, “Expanding our
Understanding of Student Leadership Development: A Study
Exploring Gender and Ethnic Identity”; Romano, “Making the
Paradigm Shift: Enhancing Communication for Clients with
Alzheimer’s Disease Using a Client-centered Approach.”
22. Fine, “Women Leaders’ Discursive Constructions of Leadership”;
Lipman-Blumen, “Connective Leadership: Female Leadership
Styles in the 21st-Century Workplace.”
23. Whitt, “I Can Be Anything? Student Leadership in Three Women’s
Colleges.”
24. Haber, “Iron Sharpens Iron: Exploring the Experiences of Female
College Student Leaders.”
25. Haber-Curran, “The Delicate Balancing Act: Challenges and

Successes Facing College Student Women in Formal Leadership
Roles.”
26. Whitt, “I Can Be Anything? Student Leadership in Three Women’s
Colleges.”
of the Evidence”; Eagly and Karau, “Role Congruity Theory of
Prejudice Toward Female Leaders”; Schein, “A Global Look at
Psychological Barriers to Women's Progress in Management”;
Valian, Why So Slow? The Advancement of Women.
28. Cook and Fonow, “Knowledge and Women’s Interests: Issues of
Epistemology and Methodology in Feminist Sociological
Research”, 22.
29. Harding, The Science Question in Feminism, 240.
30. McHugh and Cosgrove, “Research for Women: Feminist

Methods”; Reinharz and Davidman, Feminist Methods in Social
Research.
31. Batliwala, Feminist Leadership for Social Transformation: Clearing

the Conceptual Cloud; Chin, “Feminist Leadership: Feminist
Visions and Diverse Voices”; hooks, Teaching to Transgress.
32. Astin and Leland, Women of Influence, Women of Vision: A Cross-
generational Study of Leaders and Change, 37.
33. Chin, “Feminist Leadership: Feminist Visions and Diverse Voices,”
111.
34. Bensimon and Neumann, Redesigning Collegiate Leadership: Teams
and Teamwork in Higher Education.
35. Thurber and Zimmerman, “An Evolving Feminist Leadership

Model for Art Education,” 12.
36. Thurber and Zimmerman, “An Evolving Feminist Leadership

Model for Art Education,” 14–15.
the Conceptual Cloud.
38. Duerst-Lahti and Kelly, Gender Power, Leadership, and Governance,
26.
39. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Labor Force Statistics from the Current
Population Survey, 2013.
40. Tunheim and Goldschmidt, “Exploring the Role of Calling in the
Professional Journeys of College Presidents.”
Study.”
Study.”
43. Charmaz, Constructing Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide
Through Qualitative Research.
44. Charmaz, “A Constructivist Grounded Theory Analysis of Losing
and Regaining a Valued Self,” 169.
Study.”
College: Theory, Research, and Practice.
47. Human subjects’ approval was secured and all participants signed
informed consent forms.
48. Rubin and Rubin, Qualitative Interviewing: The Art of Hearing

Data.
49. McKenzie “Leadership Identity Development in Traditional-aged
Study.”
50. Charmaz, “A Constructivist Grounded Theory Analysis of Losing
and Regaining a Valued Self,”172.
51. Charmaz, Constructing Grounded Theory, 138.
52. Charmaz, Constructing Grounded Theory, 150.
53. Komives et al., “Developing a Leadership Identity: A Grounded
Theory.”
54. Sheryl Sandberg, Lean in: Women, Work, and the Will to Lead.
55. Boatwright and Egidio, “Psychological Predictors of College

Women’s Leadership Aspirations.”
56. Kezar and Lester, Enhancing Campus Capacity for Leadership;

Meyerson and Tompkins, “Tempered Radicals as Institutional
Change Agents: The Case of Advancing Gender Equity at the
University of Michigan.”
57. Owen, “Using Student Development Theories as Conceptual

Frameworks in Leadership Education.” 18.
58. Baxter Magolda, “Three Elements of Self-authorship.”
59. Sloma-Williams, McDade, Richman, and Morahan, “The Role of
Self-efficacy in Developing Women Leaders,” 53.
60. Bandura, Self-efficacy: The Exercise of Control, 383.
61. Astin and Leland, Women of Influence, Women of Vision: A Cross-
generational Study of Leaders and Change.
62. Haber-Curran, “The Delicate Balancing Act: Challenges and

Successes Facing College Student Women in Formal Leadership
Roles.”
63. Sagaria, “The Case for Empowering Women as Leaders in Higher
Education.”
64. Sloma-Williams McDade, Richman, and Morahan, “The Role of
Self-efficacy in Developing Women Leaders,” 69.
Women: Dynamics and Therapeutic Intervention,” 1; see also
Ross, Stewart, Mugge, and Fultz, “The Imposter Phenomenon,
Achievement Dispositions, and the Five Factor Model.”
66. Denston and Gray, “Leadership Development and Reflection:

What is the Connection?”
67. Tarule, “Voices in Dialogue: Collaborative Ways of Knowing,”

280.
68. Sullivan, “Informal Learning Among Women Community College
Presidents.” 102.
69. Sowards and Renegar, “Reconceptualizing Rhetorical Activism in
Contemporary Feminist Contexts.”
70. Lam, Wong, and Leung, “An Unfinished Reflexive Journey: Social
Work Students’ Reflection on Their Placement Experiences”;
Schon, Educating the Reflective Practitioner.
71. Sue et al., “Racial Microaggressions in Everyday Life: Implications
for Clinical Practice”, 273.
72. Arao and Clemens, “From Safe Spaces to Brave Spaces: A New
Way to Frame Dialogue Around Diversity and Social Justice,” 141.
the Conceptual Cloud; Thurber and Zimmerman, “An Evolving
Feminist Leadership Model for Art Education.”
74. Eicher-Catt, “The Myth of Servant-leadership: A Feminist

Perspective.” 17.
75. Reynolds, “Servant-leadership as Gender-integrative Leadership:
Paving a Path for More Gender-Integrative Organizations Through
Leadership Education,” 155.
CHAPTER 14
Honoring the “Face Behind the Mask”:

Interrogating Masculine Performatives
as Counter-Hegemonic Action
Tracy Davis and Vern Klobassa
Dominant discourses on masculinity both in and outside of higher edu-

cation have centered on crisis. The subsequent debate has often been
reduced to claims of either misandry or unchecked gender entitlement.
Maintaining a polarizing either/or analysis, however, conflates individuals
(i.e. men) with institutional systems (i.e. patriarchy) and fails to appro-
priately illuminate essential factors of masculinity like socializing forces,
context, history, and intersectionality. The resulting simplistic and binary
treatment of gender in general, and masculinity in particular, serves to
maintain an entrenched patriarchy that not only harms women, but all
genders. Men and masculinity, thus, are not essentially problematic; it
is the failure to direct critical attention toward the hierarchical, alienat-
ing, systematic patriarchy that keeps gender oppression, in all its mani-
festations, firmly in place. The purpose of this chapter is to problematize
T. Davis (*)
Educational Studies, Western Illinois University, Macomb, IL, USA
V. Klobassa
Communication and Training for the Division of Student Affairs, University of
St. Thomas Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA

300 T. DAVIS AND V. KLOBASSA
masculinity to create a path that leads away from patriarchal oppression

to a more authentically authored self, using critical strategies guided by
intersectionality and Queer Theory concepts. Enacting a more nuanced
interrogation of masculinities offers emancipatory possibilities that point
toward the kinds of agency and counter-hegemonic practices that chal-
lenge a calcified patriarchy.
Some scholars appropriately direct attention to patriarchal rigidity and
hegemonic masculinity,1 as well as within-group differences like ethnicity
that make men-in-aggregate arguments problematic.2 Educational prac-
tices, however, lag behind. Unless professional practices and educational
interventions move beyond dualistic reactions to gender, and incorporate
critical complexities that exist in the contended space between institu-
tional systems and gendered/raced/classed individuals, we risk maintain-
ing the patriarchal status quo in which masculine performatives are (mis)
treated as men themselves.
Even though patriarchal institutional patterns need to be critically inter-
rogated, educators need to simultaneously treat individuals with empathy
and compassion. Understanding how hegemony works and being con-
scious of the complexities around identity intersectionality (and related
disruption of a dualistic construction of privilege and oppression) can
encourage empathy and promote compassionate intervention with men,
leading to more effective educational outcomes. Compassion for individu-
als is possible, for example, when educators see the unyielding patriarchal
patterns that perpetuate a problematic and impossible narrative of power,
violence, domination, and control to which men are socialized. Men are
thus moved to perform certain roles in order to gain gender capital,3 while
masking those characteristics that do not conform to the dominant nar-
rative in order to avoid penalties.4 As a result, men are both privileged by
the patriarchal system and harmed by the expected performatives of the
alienating narrative of power and control.
Educational efforts to counteract the narrow patriarchal narrative too
often conflate the personal and institutional, as well as ignore the com-
plexities of identity,5 the nature of masculine hegemony,6 and the influ-
ences related to context and performance.7 In this chapter, we illuminate
these complexities, focusing on the concept of masculine performativity.
We use Queer Theory concepts of performativity and liminality8 to frame
college students’ masculine identities and will use case examples from an
ongoing grounded theory study. We end the chapter by discussing impli-
cations for practice doing counter-hegemonic work with college men.
HONORING THE “FACE BEHIND THE MASK”: INTERROGATING... 301
Unloosening the binary construction of gender in the patriarchy offers

liminal space between externally constructed standards and internal self
where authentically authored masculinities can be realized and patriar-
chal oppression challenged. This conceptual effort is consistent with bell
hooks’ description of theory as liberatory practice: we see a deeper under-
standing of masculinity, intersectionality, and Queer Theory as a location
for both healing and action.9
Subjective Masculinities and Intersectionality
While those who identify as cisgender men and perform hegemonic stan-
dards of masculinity disproportionately benefit from the privileges afforded
in a patriarchy, not every man benefits equally. Raewyn W. Connell estab-
lishes that “masculinity” is not an isolated or coherent object, but rather
is shaped both by intersections of other social identities as well as rela-
tionships of those identities with others in context.10 Connell explains the
dialectic nature of the ways masculinity is constructed in European and
American culture: “the concept [of masculinity] is inherently relational.
‘Masculinity’ does not exist except in contrast with ‘femininity.’”11 Connell
also argues that the current framing of masculinity is a relatively recent
historical phenomenon (only a few hundred years old) and the concept
only arises in a “system of gender relations”12 that undergird institutions
and the economy. Not only are masculinities constructed within a system
of gender relations, but also in relation to other identity dimensions and
the ways they intersect. Connell suggests that “White men’s masculinities,
for instance, are constructed not only in relation to white women but also
in relation to black men.”13 Connell adds to the complexity of identity
intersectionality by illuminating the historical context under which mas-
culinities are constructed: “White fears of black men’s violence have a long
history in colonial and post-colonial situations. Black fears of white men’s
terrorism, founded in the history of colonialism, have a continuing basis
in white men’s control of police, courts and prisons in metropolitan coun-
tries.”14 Connell thus provides an important foundation for understanding
the complexity of the construction of masculinities using an intersectional
framework grounded in historical context.
Kimberlé Crenshaw and others have persuasively illustrated how gender
intersects with other dimensions of identity to dramatically challenge sim-
plistic notions of who is privileged and who is oppressed.15 With regard to
masculinity, scholars have demonstrated that African American men,16 gay
men,17 trans* men,18 Latino men,19 working class men,20 and men with
disabilities,21 for example, have lived experiences that transcend simple
gender identity and, in fact, may inhabit spaces more targeted for oppres-
sion than some women. Intersectionality complicates gender privilege and
oppression by not simply acknowledging multiple dimensions of iden-
tity, but more importantly, by uncovering the complicated privileging or
targeting-for-oppression spaces at the intersections of those dimensions.
Educators who honor the multidimensional, intersectional, and socially-
mitigated nature of men’s identities can design educational interventions
that accurately reflect the phenomena, as well as foreground a social justice
practice that invites everyone to consider the complexities of their iden-
tity positions rather than relying on an essentialized privileged/oppressed
binary.
The complexities of identity intersectionality suggest, therefore, that
individuals may experience privilege along some dimensions of identity
while facing oppression due to others. Working class men, according to
Michael Kaufman, who are told they are privileged may experience power
as a paradox that is not only confusing but contrary to much of their lived
experience.22 The paradox of masculinity is that “in objective social analy-
sis, men as a group have power over women as a group: but in their sub-
jective experience of the world, men as individuals do not feel powerful.
In fact, they feel powerless.”23 This perspective is not a denial of privilege:
institutionally-conferred privilege exists whether or not it is individually
felt or recognized.
Essentially, men’s contradictory experiences of power suggest that
men’s social power is the source of individual privilege and simultaneously
the source of individual pain and alienation. For example, the experience
of men with power and privilege is based on a range of social identities:
gay male, African American male, Jewish male, effeminate male, working-
class male, and so forth. According to Kaufman, “The social power of a
poor man is different than a rich one, a working class black man from a
working class white man, a gay man from a bisexual man from a straight
man, a Jewish man in Ethiopia from a Jewish man in Israel, a teenage boy
from an adult.”24 Any discussion about gender, or any other dimension
of identity, is therefore incomplete without clarifying the dynamics of
intersectionality.
Men as a general group enjoy social power in a patriarchy and men
within identity subgroups tend to have more power and privilege.
However, complexities related to multiple dimensions of identity that

describe power and powerlessness on a continuum rather than a binary
opposite are needed. bell hooks captured men’s paradoxical experience of
power when she claimed:
The poor or working class man who has been socialized via sexist ideology to
believe that there are privileges and powers he should possess solely because
he is male often finds that few if any of these benefits are automatically
bestowed him in life. More than any other male group in the United States,
he is constantly concerned about the contradiction between the notion of
masculinity he was taught and his inability to live up to that notion. He is
usually “hurt,” emotionally scarred because he does not have the privilege
or power society has taught him “real men” should possess. Alienated, frus-
trated, pissed off, he may attack, abuse and oppress an individual woman
or women, but he is not reaping positive benefits from his support and
perpetuation of sexist ideology.25
Moreover, according to hooks, “if the feminist movement ignores his pre-
dicament, dismisses his hurt, or writes him off as just another male enemy,
then we are passively condoning his actions.”26
It is understandable that those who are painfully aware of the material
impacts of, or who have been directly harmed by, the patriarchy would
want to eviscerate the systems that support gender oppression. However,
educators need to carefully consider their professional roles related to
effectively promoting learning in a manner that empathetically disrupts
ignorance and oppression and also avoids being countertransferentially
critical. Countertransference generally refers to the unconscious projec-
tion of misplaced feelings onto patients in therapy. In the educational
relationship, countertransference related to gender identity can take the
form of working out the pain inflicted by patriarchal oppression on par-
ticular people who represent hegemonic masculinity. Maurianne Adams,
Lee Anne Bell, and Pat Griffin suggest a strategy for both challenging
systemic oppression and empathizing with individuals, for example,
through illuminating institutional domination while affirming the per-
sonal situation.27 In many ways, it should not be surprising, in fact it
should be expected, that people hold patriarchal views in a patriarchy.
This would be particularly true for those who are advantaged by the
system since the nature of privilege is that it is generally invisible to its
benefactors.
Hegemony and Hegemonic Masculinities

Hegemony describes the process by which narrowly defined, commonly
accepted, and generally invisible standards of masculinity are established.
Unless hegemony is understood, binary constructions of gender are seen
as natural. Awareness of hegemony opens the space for interrogating dog-
matic standards so that the complexities become visible. Consciousness
of hegemony is “liberatory practice.”28 Liberatory practice, as described
earlier in the context of hooks’ work, envisions conceptual or theoreti-
cal understanding as the fuel for enacting strategies that promote both
individual emancipation from socially constructed gender constraints and
broader social justice work toward equity.29 Understanding hegemony is
especially important in social justice work with college men.
Antonio Gramsci is one of the most prominent critical theorists from the
Marxist tradition.30 Gramsci is best known for his work expanding Lenin’s
concept of hegemony. His most profound writing on the concept was
produced while in prison following a revolutionary uprising in Italy. As a
political detainee, he spent time in prison attempting to analyze and strat-
egize about the failings of revolution in what became known as his prison
notebooks. Many academics and critical theorists have written about this
concept. Below we discuss four key elements to the concept of hegemony:
(1) hegemony involves a relationship between social forces and collective
consent; (2) hegemony is illusive because of buy-in to widely accepted
assumptions; (3) hegemony manifests in the space between institutional
and individual levels; and (4) hegemony is “historically mobile”31 and is
therefore a contestable position. We then discuss hegemony in the context
of gender to describe hegemonic masculinity, including the undergird-
ing assumptions, how it is maintained and reified, and the impact that it
can have on men. Such analysis expands our theoretical understandings of
gender and locates the processes by which binary notions are constructed.
Educational interventions that disrupt such binaries can be guided by
uncovering how hegemony operates.
Hegemony is an elusive concept, in part because of its nature and com-
plexity.32 Hegemony has been widely used to understand how social and
cultural forces work in conjunction with economic and political forces help
construct systems of oppression. One way that Gramsci describes hege-
mony is by framing it as collective consent given to social forces exerted
by a dominant ideology.33 Gramsci explains that hegemony operates well
when the relationship between social forces and collective consent strikes
a balance where the social forces do not significantly exceed collective con-
sent. This balance is important because it allows hegemony to maintain its
illusive nature.
The concept of hegemony has been leveraged in adult education lit-
erature to illustrate how critical thinking can be taught more effectively.34
Stephen Brookfield has done significant work making hegemony more
accessible and understandable. He shows that hegemony leads people
to buy into assumptions that they think are helping them, but which in
reality are hurting them. With regard to gender, for example, individuals
believe that the standards of hegemonic masculinity are not only worth
consenting to, but also emblematic of healthy identity. Brookfield empha-
sizes that “hegemony…works by consent. People are not forced against
their will to assimilate to the dominant ideology. They learn to do this,
quite willingly, and in the process they believe that this ideology represents
their best interests.”35 These aspects of hegemony, clearly manifested in
this culture’s gender dynamics, can and should be applied to understand-
ing men’s development. The process that leads men to support beliefs and
practices that ironically harm them also serves to support a system that
maintains power over them.
It is also important to note that hegemony manifests in the space
between institutional and individual levels. Raewyn Connell, in her dis-
cussion of hegemony, writes that, “Hegemony is likely to be established
only if there is some correspondence between cultural ideal and insti-
tutional power; collective, if not individual.”36 Think of hegemony as a
thorough inculcation that embeds assumptions about “the way things
are” into institutions, cultural practice and everyday interactions. Stephen
Brookfield further illustrates how nuanced hegemony can be, suggesting
that “hegemony is lived out a thousand times a day in our intimate behav-
iors, glances, body postures, in fleeting calculations we make on how to
look at and speak to each other, and in the continuous micro-decisions
that coalesce into a life.”37 This thorough inculcation leads us to expecta-
tions and definitions of “normal behaviors” that guide our interactions
with others on a daily basis and a reliance on assumptions that we use to
establish institutional policies, practices and procedures.
In addition to the illusive and consensual nature of hegemony and
how it serves to reinforce individual attitudes and systematic pressures,
it is important to note that just as we change on an individual level, and
culture shifts and changes on a more collective scale, so too does hege-
mony. Raewyn Connell uses the term “historically mobile”38 to describe
the way that hegemony can change based on shifts in context. When the
conditions for dominance over any social identity change, the established
assumptions and strategies that maintain hegemony erode. This neces-
sitates either adjustment on the part of those in power or the possibility
of a shift in the power relationship. Michael Kimmel’s book Angry White
Men shows how some men are responding to gender and racial shifts,
and is representative of how hegemony battles to accommodate changes,
while essentially maintaining the status quo. Thus, hegemony is always
a contestable position. Stephen Brookfield describes this principle as an
education imperative because it “is not imposed on them so much as it is
learned by them.”39 And because it is learned, it can be unlearned. This
principle serves as a foundation for our call to counter-hegemonic action
that we discuss later in the chapter.
Hegemonic Masculinities Hegemony, as a concept and framework, has

been used to analyze masculinities. Raewyn Connell’s analysis starts
with the understanding that (1) sexism is rooted in a system of patri-
archy that (2) conflates gender, sex, and sexuality, (3) privileges mas-
culinity, (4) targets femininity and (5) interlocks with other systems of
oppression.40 On an individual level, the analysis explores how deeply
held and valued assumptions about what it means to be masculine both
reify patriarchy and end up hurting men.41 Gender role conflict theory
also offers an analysis of these assumptions in the literature on mascu-
linities. Psychologist James O’Neil, a leading scholar in gender role con-
flict, describes this phenomenon as “a psychological state where gender
roles have negative consequences or impacts on a person or others.”42
These hegemonic masculine norms include behaviors like being “tough,
aggressive, competitive, intimidat[ing], in control” and also void of feel-
ings, making no mistakes, never asking for help, never backing down, and
having money.43 While discussing the normative hegemonic approach to
discourse on masculinities (which encompasses the concept of gender
roles), Connell asks the following questions, “What is ‘normative’ about
a norm that hardly anyone meets? Are we to say the majority of men
are unmasculine? How do we assay the toughness needed to resist the
norm of toughness, or the heroism needed to come out as gay?”44 These
questions begin to unearth the absurdity and problems associated with
hegemonic masculine gender norms and illuminate the nature of their
construction.
Gender Policing: Reification of Hegemonic Masculinities One of the ways

in which hegemonic masculinity assumptions are maintained is through
gender policing. Gender policing is a process that reinforces the restrictive
nature of hegemonic masculine and feminine gender roles through a pro-
cess of implementing punitive action against individuals who fall outside
of them.45 Policing shames the individual for stepping outside of tradi-
tional gender norms and also reinforces the confines of what is defined as
a traditional gender norm.46 For example, if a man broke the confines of
traditional masculine norms by giving a friend a hug, individuals observing
this act might police this behavior by questioning the sexuality of the man
giving the hug by using anti-gay slurs such as “fag” or “homo.”47 One of
the linguistic nuances of hegemonic masculinities and the gender polic-
ing process is that it stems from a negative association with feminine and
Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender identities, rather than a positive associa-
tion with masculinity.48 Thus, the identity of being a man is defined more
by what it is not than by what it is.49 The gender policing process there-
fore contributes significantly to defining, reifying, and maintaining hege-
monic masculinities. Once again, the praxis (where theory meets practice)
suggests that educators should ask the question, “What if college men’s
behaviors are viewed as a performance avoiding the negative consequences
of gender policing?”
How Men are Harmed by Hegemonic Masculinity As illustrated above,

men benefit from and are harmed by hegemonic masculinities. A com-
mon theme in literature that discusses gender role conflict is its restrictive
nature.50 This restriction touches many aspects of men’s lives by shap-
ing not only how men behave but also how they feel.51 William Pollack
names this restriction the “gender straightjacket,” describing not only
how individual men think, feel and behave is restricted, but also how soci-
ety constructs the straightjacket on a macro-level.52 The limiting range of
appropriate possibilities created by hegemonic masculinity leads men not
only to narrow behavior performances, it actually leads them to repressing
and becoming disconnected from the emotions and behaviors associated
with femininity. Pollack describes this phenomenon as “mak[ing] [men]
strangers to [them]selves and to one another.”53
Because the narrow hegemonic definition of masculinity is unachiev-

able, men often put up a front to disguise the fact that they are failing
to achieve it.54 Pollack describes this front as a mask, and writes that the
goal is to “get behind the mask” in order to help boys or men “feel com-
fortable with [their] genuine sel[ves].”55 Keith Edwards and Susan Jones
(2009) also use the metaphor of a mask, explaining that men perform in
order to cover “aspects of themselves that [do] not meet society’s expec-
tations.”56 The shame resulting from the gap between self and society’s
expectations facilitates the masking process.57 In addition to feeling shame
about not achieving the unachievable societal expectations, men also feel
as though they are isolated in this shame and often believe that others
do not experience the same struggle. Participants in Edwards and Jones’
study, for instance, were surprised that others experienced a similar sham-
ing process.58 In fact, an insidious aspect of hegemonic masculine stan-
dards is the pressure to avoid the appearance of being weak and denying
pain. The combination of shame and pressure to appear in control is a
powerful hurdle to the counter-hegemonic strategies we later describe.
Therefore, feeling isolated in this shame makes breaking the cycle of hege-
monic masculinity more difficult.
Gender role conflict has a deeply negative impact not only on individu-
als but also communities.59 On an individual level, the impact of gender
role conflict affects men’s relationships at home, work, and with friends
and also affects men’s physical and mental health.60 Men are depressed,
exhibit suicidal behaviors, drop out of school, get into fights, and uti-
lize alcohol and other drugs at greater rates than women.61 However,
the effects of gender role conflict reach further than individuals. Michael
Kimmel describes components of culture arising from gender role conflict
that negatively affect our communities by allowing this problematic cycle
to continue.62 One of these components is silence. Kimmel explains that
men’s desire to fit in and fear of being outcast and marginalized keeps
them silent in the face of problematic events, including things such as
drunk driving and sexual assault.63 This culture of silence facilitates an
environment where unhealthy and inhuman behaviors are allowed to con-
tinue.64 Additionally, a culture of protection also contributes to facilitat-
ing this environment. This cultural component describes actions beyond
silence, where individuals in leadership positions ignore or even defend
problematic behaviors as part of the “boys will be boys” gender con-
struction. For example, the alarming prevalence of rape in college and
evidence that all-male campus groups like sports teams and fraternities
are more likely to be involved with sexual assault than non-members65
suggests a climate of male privilege and institutional practices that fail to
hold men accountable for criminal behavior.66 This culture of protection

not only facilitates an environment where these unhealthy and inhuman
behaviors are allowed, but also one where they become normalized. The
individual and cultural problems described result in emotionally and phys-
ically unhealthy men who engage in problematic relationships with family,
friends and colleagues.
Sexism is a product of a patriarchal system and a hegemonic reality,
which to undo, requires critical consciousness and praxis—translating
this process into practice.67 Tracy Davis and Rachel Wagner discuss a
number of obstacles to promoting social justice attitudes with college
men, including privilege, hegemony and contradictory experiences with
power.68 Student affairs professionals do not always honor this reality or
process and do not always think critically about these barriers. Jason Laker
coined the term “bad dog” which can be used as both a noun and a verb
to describe a shame-based process of working with boys and men, espe-
cially when they exhibit problematic behavior.69 Bad dogging does not
honor that men receive constant messaging from a very young age that
reinforce hegemonic masculinity. Nor does it honor the empathy neces-
sary to develop a critical consciousness and praxis to promote unlearn-
ing hegemonic masculinity and learning more authentic masculinities.
Locating gender and masculinity within intersectionality and hegemony
provides a useful framework for beginning to move theory to practice.
The following elucidation of Queer Theory is offered as the nexus or
hyphen between the theory-practice dichotomies. Working the hyphen is
liberatory practice.
Using Queer Theory to Interrogate Masculinities

as Counter Hegemonic Practice
We discussed above how intersectionality complicates our understand-

ing of gender privilege, provided a brief description of hegemony, and
described how this concept plays out with regard to masculinities. Below
we frame how Queer Theory can be leveraged as a counter-hegemonic
tool to disrupt the maintenance of hegemonic masculinities. We begin by
discussing Queer Theory and defining the core concepts of heteronorma-
tivity, performativity, and liminality. We then illustrate how understanding
hegemony, hegemonic masculinity, and tenets of queer theory can guide
counter-hegemonic practice with college students.
Queer Theory Queer Theory is a brand of critical theory that interrogates

the ways in which societal power structures have constructed binary norms
related to gender and sexuality.70 Judith Lorber further articulates the
nature of this binary, writing, “in Western societies… each person has one
sex, one sexuality, and one gender, congruent with each other and fixed
for life, and that these categories are one of only two sexes, two sexualities,
and two genders.”71 Drawing from Michel Foucault’s work on power,72
Judith Butler critiques the ways in which our society has conflated gender,
sex, and sexuality into a binary framework that subjugates all other ways
of being.73 Butler writes:
In Irigaray’s view, the substantive grammar of gender, which assumes men

and women as well as their attributes of masculine and feminine, is an exam-
ple of a binary that effectively masks the univocal and hegemonic discourse
of the masculine, phallogocentrism, silencing the feminine as a site of sub-
versive multiplicity. For Foucault, the substantive grammar of sex imposes
an artificial binary relation between the sexes, as well as an artificial internal
coherence within each term of that binary. The binary regulation of sexual-
ity suppresses the subversive multiplicity of sexuality that disrupts hetero-
sexual, reproductive, and medicojuridicial hegemonies.74
Here, Butler explains that the language we use around gender and sex
maintains patriarchal systems of oppression in self-sustaining ways.75 In
other words, Butler argues that utilizing gendered and sexed language
works to legitimize the socially constructed binary structure that is at the
foundation of sexism, heterosexism, and cisgenderism. Queer Theory
seeks to explicate these constructions by illuminating assumptions and
constructions around gender, sex, and sexuality, and providing new ways
of conceptualizing and living these elements of identity. If a systematically
induced hegemony around gender exists, then it makes sense that an effec-
tive counter-strategy would be to uncover the assumptions that give rise
to illusive constructions. Queer Theory promotes critical interrogation
that exposes the discursive politics of difference where power structures
privilege men and masculinities and subordinate women and femininities.
Heteronormativity A central tenet of Queer Theory is heteronorma-

tivity. As we illustrated in our discussion of hegemony, people begin to
treat subjective standards as objective truth. Similarly, heteronormativity
illustrates the ways in which heterosexuality becomes a norm within our
society. Susan Jones and Elisa Abes offer an extended definition, writ-
ing, “Heteronormativity creates and reinforces [a] power inequality by
emphasizing a binary between heterosexuality as normal (or superior) and
any expression of identity that is not explicitly heterosexual as abnormal
(or inferior).”76 They go on to explain in more depth how heteronorma-
tivity connects to the conflation of sexuality with gender and sex, stating
that “heterosexuality defines normal as men being masculine and sexually
attracted to women, and women being feminine and sexually attracted to
men.”77 Any behavior outside of this rigidly defined construction defies
the dominant ideology and is therefore the target of oppression by our
cultural and legal systems.
Performativity Performativity, a second precept related to Queer Theory,

refers to an iterative process of identity construction through actions and
behaviors. Jones and Abes describe performativity as “the process by
which individuals create their social identities through the behaviors of
their day-to-day lives.”78 Queer theorists argue that gender performatives
make up gender identity, not the other way around. Judith Butler, for
example, writes, “There is no gender identity behind the expressions of
gender; that identity is performativity constituted by the very ‘expressions’
that are said to be its results.”79 Jones and Abes explain that there are
three key ideas that help in understanding performativity. First, the sym-
bolic nature of performativity as represented by the clothes we wear, the
music we listen to, the films we watch, and other cultural artifacts. Second,
performativity reflects dimensions of social identities as “both individual
threads of identity and intersections of identity.”80 This relates very closely
to the third key idea, whereby Jones and Abes point out that the meaning
a person associates with the performatives of any one dimension of social
identity is inextricably tied to other dimensions of social identity. That is,
while gender influences the performative, so do the intersectionalities of
race, class, ability, and all of the other dimensions of our social identities.
Liminality A third important assumption of Queer Theory, related to

developing counter-hegemonic strategies, is liminality. Liminality repre-
sents the fluid, dynamic, developmental quality of Queer Theory. Elisa
Abes and David Kasch state that, “Liminality represents a state of flux
between two distinct and stable stages of being.”81 As such, liminality inte-
grates the concepts of heteronormativity and performativity. Regarding
the relationship between liminality and performativity, Kasch, Jones and
Abes state, “Whereas performativity emphasizes the process of action

rather than the product or outcome of action, [liminality] is both the
process and outcome of action.”82 Liminality, therefore, is a process of
becoming that serves as an act of resistance to normative frameworks for
gender and sexuality. Abes and Kasch describe liminality as a process of
becoming that “facilitates flexible genders and sexualities and reflects
how an individual may perform a seemingly contradictory performative
in ever-changing ways.”83 As a process, the concept of liminality serves as
a powerful staging area for identity development. Decisions individuals
make regarding the enactment of particular performatives are made in
liminal space where identity can be constructed and reconstructed. As an
outcome, liminality becomes an act of resistance against the heteronorma-
tive and gender bifurcated culture in which we live. Taken together, the
central Queer Theory concepts of heteronormativity, performativity, and
liminality provide a foundation upon which static, binary and passively
accepted notions of gender and masculinity can be (re)considered, (re)
imagined, and authentically (re)constituted.
Queer Authorship in Student Affairs Literature The term “queer” can also
be used as a verb. In the context of promoting healthy identity develop-
ment and challenging the static and harmful status quo, one can queer the
liminal space between self and, in this case, hegemonic standards of mas-
culinity to begin the journey toward authentically chosen values and ways
of being in the world. Negotiating hegemonic masculinity, engaging inter-
sectionality, and (re)constructing gender is a form of “queer authorship.”
Queer authorship provides a developmental bridge between externally
authored, static standards to an internally and dynamically conscious self.
Abes and Kasch use Queer Theory to build upon the prominent student
affairs theory of self-authorship.84 Robert Kegan explains that intraper-
sonal, cognitive, and interpersonal development is an integrative meaning
making process.85 He described this as a process toward self-authorship
by which adults rely on internal meaning making capacity as opposed to
external authority.86 Marcia Baxter Magolda expanded on Kegan’s con-
cept of self-authorship through her longitudinal study on adult mean-
ing making. Developmentally, Baxter Magolda describes a self-authored
meaning making capacity represents a shift “from uncritically accepting
values, beliefs, interpersonal loyalties and intrapersonal states from exter-
nal authorities to forming those elements internally.”87 Baxter Magolda
identified three core elements to the experiences of her self-authored par-
ticipants. First, her participants found that “trusting their internal voices
heightened their ability to take ownership of how they made meaning of
external events.”88 Second, her participants worked to “creat[e] a philoso-
phy or framework—an internal foundation—to guide their reactions to
reality.”89 Third, her participants described “‘crossing over’ from under-
standing their internal commitments to living them.”90 Abes and Kasch
expand on the theory of self-authorship using Queer Theory:
[F]or students who do not identify as heterosexual, identity development

as part of the journey toward self-authorship requires resisting power struc-
tures that define one as abnormal. Whereas self-authorship focuses on how
students construct internal frameworks to navigate external influences,
queer resistance focuses on how students deconstruct and reconstruct exter-
nal influences.91
Queer authorship explores not only the internal process of meaning mak-
ing but also the impact that performatives have on shaping the contexts
in which we live.
Within a heteronormative world, which situates any identities other
than hetero-cisgender as abnormal, performatives that resist this norm
have the power to shape context. While engaging in a process of self-
definition that resists normative definitions of gender and sexuality can
promote individual identity development, it can also serve to deconstruct
heteronormativity and hegemonic masculinity. Abes and Kasch illustrate
this idea in their analysis of their research participants’ experience, writing:
It was evident that KT was trying to push back against dominant social
structures, engaging in sophisticated interpersonal pursuits, and slowly
defining herself in relation to others who tried to define her identity for her.
Stepping outside of the self-authorship framework allowed us to incorporate
KT’s efforts at deconstructing heteronormativity into her development as
more complex than what the language of self-authorship allows.92
Thus, queer authorship becomes not only an act of personal identity

development, but also one of social change. That is, those performing
resistance to dominant social structures bring the previously unacceptable
into the realm of possibility. Standing against the norms and rejecting
pervasive gender policing as part of queer authorship may come at a price,
but it may be a small price for discovering an authentic self and joining in
a rebellion against the grand narrative of patriarchal hegemony. Such acts

of resistance are the seeds of sustained cultural transformation.
Using a queer authorship perspective can offer insights into promoting
healthy development of all college students. Rather than blindly accepting
the hegemonic standards of masculinity that have been sold to them since
birth, students can be taught the critical tools associated with critical the-
ory. Gender can be unearthed from its objectivist roots and questioned,
explored and seen within the larger range of possibilities related to gen-
dered experiences. Sexuality can be disentangled from gender and interro-
gated in a manner that honors the variety of the students’ lived expressions
as opposed to the limits of their confined constructions. Gender behav-
iors are seen as performatives existing in liminal space where resistance,
acquiescence, assimilation, and other human choices are constantly in play.
Under such circumstances, the mask and the individual behind the mask
are simultaneously illuminated so that human choice, consciousness, and
agency replace hidden allegiance to socially influenced pressures.
Counter-Hegemonic Practices The framework of hegemony, intersection-

ality and concepts related to Queer Theory (and critical theory in general)
is, in our experience, necessary for educational practice that honors the face
behind the mask. The mask serves as performance of hegemonic standards
of masculinity, but deep questioning using counter-hegemonic practices
(consciousness about hegemony, intersectionality, etc.) activates the face
behind the mask so that individuals replace blind acceptance with active
agency. Moreover, the developmental goal is not destruction of the mask,
but consciousness of the confining and socially constructed gender norms
that shape it. As educators bring their own performance and practice in
line with these critical concepts, students learn to question the authentic-
ity of the hegemonic norms behind the creation of the mask. Some gender
performances may be discarded, others more deeply integrated: the main
goal is that these are consciously chosen in light of complexities related
to intersectionality. It will take moving beyond the philosophical foun-
dation described here to practices and behaviors that incorporate such
an understanding. For example, deeply listening to students and others,
encouraging their own voices and inviting storytelling are strategies for
hearing those with whom we might be countertransferentially critical. The
narratives we tell are often a mixture of hegemony and authenticity and
providing space for their expression can stimulate a critical analysis of what
is being sold versus what we want to buy. Awareness of how hegemony
works is a first step, but grounding it in one’s lived experience can ignite
a spark toward action.
Programs and discussions related to gendered advertising can illumi-

nate the systematic-level hegemony that sells men one narrative and one
model for being. Powerful learning can take place when students are asked
to consider their own voices in relation to the culturally enforced expec-
tations. College is an ideal time for students to question conforming to
standards that may run against their desire to be their own person. Most
students need support when they first begin performing resistance and
ways of being in the world that disrupts hegemonic standards. This devel-
opmental process does not require educators to “make everything better,”
but rather a learning partner who role models facing the difficult questions
that arise with compassion, and promotes a critical stance toward external
demands/socialization.
In our construction of classroom and other learning environments to
take advantage of the critical concept of liminal space, we have found that
students find motivation to challenge and explore ideas around gender
and other identities when we do the following:
(a) Illuminate institutional forces in contemporary campus or cultural

happenings and media (like advertisements) that promote the cre-
ation of self-masks
(b) Model compassionate intervention versus being countertransferen-
tially critical
(c) Teach mindful masculinity—that is, honor that there are both

physical and mental responses to learning new things and being
conscious of how our gender and other identities are positioned in
a particular context
(d) Spread counter-narratives and tell stories that illuminate our con-
nection and mutual liberation
An example of an effective counter-narrative that illuminates mutual

liberation is the story of patriarchy that harms all genders. Standards of
masculinity that inhibit expression of sensitive emotions prepares warriors
and competitors, effectively serving a capitalist economy, but can interfere
with personal relationships and mental health. Consciously interrogating
such hegemonies serves both individual men and those harmed by the
restrictive emotionality standard of hegemonic masculinity.93
There are a number of strategies for promoting critical conscious-

ness of hegemonic masculinity and encouraging students to develop a
corresponding praxis. Tracy Davis and Jason Laker, for example, discuss
an effective model developed by Robert Kegan for both meeting male
students in developmentally appropriate ways and encouraging critical
consciousness.94 In an early developmental phase, before hegemony and
intersectionality is understood, educators are challenged to meet defend-
ing with confirmation. Cisgender men may get defensive if they feel their
worldview is being challenged. Rather than “correcting,” confirmation
is employed by instructors and college personnel, validating feelings and
showing understanding so that defensiveness can be permeated. The sec-
ond phase discusses meeting surrendering with contradiction. When men
surrender their defensiveness, professionals should help them explore con-
tradictions between the standards they were sold and the more complex
reality. Finally, the third phase of Kegan’s model describes connecting
reintegration with continuity. When men begin to develop a praxis for this
new information, professionals should affirm their efforts and encourage
continuity and accountability. Working with men in groups can also yield
effective results in promoting critical consciousness and praxis.95 Another
strategy that can be leveraged in working with college men to develop crit-
ical consciousness is to utilize Paulo Friere’s problem posing method96—
learners in a group are presented with a real problem, which they ground
in personal experience, critically examine, and discuss potential collective
action. This strategy also integrates well with a coalition building strategy,
where individuals identify allies to work with toward liberation and libera-
tory practice.97
Conclusion
Using a critical approach to exploring and constructing healthy gender
identity is necessary because patriarchal hegemony permeates our early
development. The artificial duality of binary gender messages, unidimen-
sional identity development, and ruggedly individualistic unfolding of self
needs to be interrogated toward a more accurate understanding of gen-
der fluidity, intersectionality and related influences of systemic oppression.
Interrogating masculinities begins with an understanding of intersection-
ality and central concepts related to critical theory. As h eteronormativity
and gender normativity become understood as artificial binaries and
become more disentangled, the underlying methods of oppression are
exposed. The means for distributing power through social rewards and
penalties for various gender performatives are illuminated so that students
can develop understanding and agency.
Rather than essentialized attributes, gender can be “queered” and
enlivened toward the construction of authentic authorship in the lim-
inal spaces created. Just as bell hooks enacted theory to engage pain and
develop liberatory practice,98 so too can students and educational profes-
sionals wishing to raise consciousness about patriarchal oppression elicit a
queering of hegemonic masculinity in liminal space where authentic self
can emerge. According to hooks, however, “theory is not inherently heal-
ing, liberatory, or revolutionary. It fulfills this function only when we ask
that it do so and direct our theorizing towards this end.”99
Working effectively with college men means being intentional and
honoring the face behind the mask. Hegemonic masculinity powerfully
prods everyone toward a mythic singularity that penalizes those who do
not conform. If we fail to understand how these processes impact mascu-
line performance and gender development, we risk maintaining the status
quo. Honoring the face behind the mask requires recognizing how we are
gendered and developing empathy, not antipathy toward those who are
blindly enacting the scripts they have been subconsciously sold.
Notes
1. e.g., Kimmel and Davis, “Mapping Guyland in College”; Davis
and Harper, “Introduction to Special Issue on Men and
Masculinities: Promoting Learning and Development with College
Men.”
2. e.g., Harper, Wardell, and McGuire, “Men of Multiple Identities:
Complex Individual and Identity Intersectionality Among College
Men”; Matua, “Multidimensionality is to Masculinities What
Intersectionality is to Feminism.”
3. Bridges, “Gender Capital and Male Body Builders.”
4. Edwards and Jones, “Putting My Man Face On: A Grounded
Theory of College Men’s Gender Identity Development.”
5. Abes, Jones, and McEwen, “Reconceptualizing the Model of
Multiple Dimensions of Identity: The Role of Meaning-Making
Capacity in the Construction of Multiple Identities”; Crenshaw,
“Mapping the Margins: Intersectionality, Identity Politics, and
Violence Against Women of Color.”
6. e.g., Connell and Messerschmidt, “Hegemonic Masculinity:

Rethinking the Concept.”
7. e.g., Butler, Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of
Identity.
8. Kasch, Jones, and Abes, “Queer Theory. In Identity Development
of College Students.”
9. hooks, “Theory as Liberatory Practice.”
10. Connell, Masculinities
11. Ibid., 68.
12. Ibid., 71.
13. Ibid., 75.
14. Ibid.
15. Crenshaw, “Mapping the Margins: Intersectionality, Identity

Politics, and Violence Against Women of Color”; e.g., Jones,
“Constructing Identities at the Intersections.”
16. Harper and Harris, College Men and Masculinities: Theory, Research,
and Implications for Practice.
17. Harper, Wardell, and McGuire, “Men of Multiple Identities:

Complex Individual and Identity Intersectionality Among College
Men.”
18. Bilodeau, “Beyond the Gender Binary: A Case Study of Transgender
College Students Development at a Midwestern University”;
Catalano, “Beyond Virtual Equality: Liberatory Consciousness as
a Path to Achieve Trans* Inclusion in Higher Education.”
19. Saenz and Ponjuan, “The Vanishing Latino Male in Higher

Education.”
20. Longwell-Grice, “Working Class and Working College: A Case
Study of First Generation, Working Class, First Year, White Male
College Students”; Reed, “Socio-Economic and Work Identity
Intersections with Masculinity and College Success.”
21. Gerschick, “Disability Identity Intersections with Masculinities.”
22. Kaufman, “Men, Feminism, and Men’s Contradictory Experiences
of Power.”
23. Capraro, 159.
24. Kaufman, “Men, Feminism, and Men’s Contradictory Experiences
of Power,” 68.
25. hooks, “Men: Comrades in Struggle,” 559.
26. Ibid.
27. Adams, Bell, and Griffin, Teaching for Diversity and Social Justice.
8. hooks, “Theory as Liberatory Practice,” 1.

2
30. Gramsci, The Antonio Gramsci Reader: Selected Writings
1916–1935.
31. Connell, Masculinities, 77.
32. Brookfield, The Power of Critical Theory for Adult Learning and
Teaching.
33. Gramsci, The Antonio Gramsci Reader: Selected Writings
1916–1935.
Teaching.
35. Ibid., 94.
Teaching, 96.
Teaching, 96.
40. Connell, Masculinities.
41. Wagner, “Embracing Liberatory Practice: Promoting Men’s

Development as a Feminist Act.”
42. O’Neil, Helms, Gable, David, and Wrightsman, “Gender Role

Conflict Scale: Men’s Fear of Femininity,” 336.
43. Kivel, Men’s Work: How to Stop the Violence that Tears Our Lives
Apart, 84.
45. Kivel, Men’s Work: How to Stop the Violence that Tears Our Lives
Apart; Pascoe, Dude, You’re a Fag: Masculinity and Sexuality in
High School.
46. Ibid.
47. Davis, “Voices of Gender Role Conflict: The Social Construction
of College Men’s Identity”; Kimmel, Guyland: The Perilous World
Where Boys Become Men; Kivel, Men’s Work: How to Stop the Violence
that Tears Our Lives Apart; Pascoe, Dude, You’re a Fag: Masculinity
and Sexuality in High School; Pollack, Real Boys: Rescuing our Sons
from the Myths of Boyhood.
of College Men’s Identity”; Kimmel, Guyland: The Perilous World
Where Boys Become Men; Pollack, Real Boys: Rescuing our Sons from
the Myths of Boyhood.
of College Men’s Identity”; Edwards and Jones, “Putting My Man
Face On: A Grounded Theory of College Men’s Gender Identity
Development”; Kimmel, Guyland: The Perilous World Where Boys
Become Men; Kimmel and Messner, Men’s Lives; Laker and Davis,
Masculinities in Higher Education: Theoretical and Practical
Considerations; O’Neil, Helms, Gable, David and Wrightsman,
“Gender Role Conflict Scale: Men’s Fear of Femininity”; Pollack,
Real Boys: Rescuing our Sons from the Myths of Boyhood.
of College Men’s Identity”; Edwards and Jones, “Putting My Man
Face On: A Grounded Theory of College Men’s Gender Identity
Development”; Kimmel, Guyland: The Perilous World Where Boys
Become Men; Kimmel and Messner, Men’s Lives; Laker and Davis,
Masculinities in Higher Education: Theoretical and Practical
Considerations; Pollack, Real Boys: Rescuing our Sons from the Myths
of Boyhood.
52. Pollack, Real Boys: Rescuing our Sons from the Myths of Boyhood, 6.
53. Ibid.
Theory of College Men’s Gender Identity Development”; Pollack,
55. Pollack, Real Boys: Rescuing our Sons from the Myths of Boyhood, 7.
Theory of College Men’s Gender Identity Development,” 216.
Theory of College Men’s Gender Identity Development”; Pollack,
59. Capraro, “Why College Men Drink: Alcohol, Adventure and the
Paradox of Masculinity”; Kimmel, Guyland: The Perilous World
Where Boys Become Men; Laker and Davis, Masculinities in Higher
Education: Theoretical and Practical Considerations.
Paradox of Masculinity”; Laker and Davis, Masculinities in Higher
Paradox of Masculinity”; Kimmel, Guyland: The Perilous World
Where Boys Become Men; Laker and Davis, Masculinities in Higher
62. Kimmel, Guyland: The Perilous World Where Boys Become Men;
Kimmel and Davis, “Mapping Guyland in College.”
63. Ibid.
64. Ibid.
65.
Murnen and Kohlman, “Athletic Participation, Fraternity
Membership, and Sexual Aggression Among College Men: A
Meta-analytic Review.”
66. Carrigan and Mitchell, The Crisis of Campus Sexual Violence:

Critical Perspectives on Prevention and Response.
67. Harris and Barone, “The Situation of Men, and Situating Men in
Higher Education: A Conversation About Crisis, Myth, and Reality
About College Students Who are Men”; Brookfield, The Power of
Critical Theory for Adult Learning and Teaching; Gramsci, The
Antonio Gramsci Reader: Selected Writings 1916–1935)
68. Davis and Wagner, “Increasing Men’s Development of Social

Justice Attitudes and Actions.”
69. Laker, “Inviting and Inspiring Men to Learn: Gendered Pedagogical
Considerations for Undergraduate Teaching and Learning
Environments.”
70. Jones and Abes, Advancing Frameworks for Multiple Dimensions of
Identity.
71. Lorber, Gender Inequality Feminist Theories and Politics, 60.
72. Foucault, Discipline and Punish: The Birth of Prison.
73. Butler, Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity.
74. Ibid., 26.
Identity, 198.
77. Ibid.
78. Ibid., 199.
79. Butler, Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity,
34.

Identity, 200.
81. Abes and Kasch, “Using Queer theory to Explore Lesbian College
Students’ Multiple Dimensions of Identity,” 216.
82. Kasch, Jones and Abes, “Queer Theory. In Identity Development
of College Students,” 202.
Students’ Multiple Dimensions of Identity”; Baxter Magolda,
“Three Elements of Self-Authorship”; Kegan, In Over Our Heads:
The Mental Demands of Modern Life.
85. Kegan, In Over Our Heads: The Mental Demands of Modern Life.
86. Baxter Magolda, “Three Elements of Self-Authorship”; Kegan, In
Over Our Heads: The Mental Demands of Modern Life.
87. Baxter Magolda, “Three Elements of Self-Authorship,” 270.
88. Ibid., 279.
89. Ibid., 280.
90. Ibid., 280–281.
92. Ibid., 224.
93. O’Neil, Helms, Gable, David and Wrightsman, “Gender Role

Conflict Scale: Men's Fear of Femininity.”
94. Davis and Laker, “Connecting Men to Academic and Student

Affairs Programs and Services”; Kegan, In Over Our Heads: The
Mental Demands of Modern Life.
95. Davis, LaPrad, and Dixon, “Masculinities Reviewed and

Reinterpreted: Using a Critical Approach to Working with Men in
Groups.”
96. Friere, Pedagogy of the Oppressed.
97. Wagner, “Embracing Liberatory Practice: Promoting Men’s

Development as a Feminist Act”; Harro, “The Cycle of
Socialization.”
99. Ibid., 2.
PART IV
Looking Forward
CHAPTER 15
Critical Approaches to Women and Gender

in Higher Education: Reaching the Tipping
Point for Change
Tehmina Khwaja, Pamela L. Eddy, and Kelly Ward
A review of the status of women and the roles of gender in higher education
for a range of stakeholders—administrators and staff, faculty, and students—
makes clear that the experiences of these individuals and their issues in insti-
tutions of higher education are subject to the persistence of male hegemonic
norms1 and entrenched gendered organizational structures.2 The barriers
created by these norms exist under the veneer of increasing representation
of women in the student body and entering faculty ranks. In some instances
there has been great progress, but in other areas equity and parity have been
stalled. A review of the material covered in this volume as well as related
research highlights that individuals on the gender spectrum and also women
from historically underrepresented groups remain largely ignored and the
T. Khwaja (*)
Islamabad, Pakistan
P.L. Eddy
K. Ward

326 T. KHWAJA ET AL.
barriers created by implicit biases remain.3 The chapters present implications

for changes in practice, and indeed, the illustration of some change occur-
ring on campuses. In considering the lessons learned from this volume and
contemplating next steps to reach a tipping point for change, the purpose
of this final chapter is to synthesize key points and implications from the
volume as well as focus on the role of performance, resistance to change,
frame-breaking behaviors to achieve needed changes, and the role of femi-
nism in teaching, research, and service.
Role of Performance
Social role theory posits that gender differences are attributable to the
different roles men and women are required to perform in society.4 The
high concentration of women in lower echelons of academia as well as in
feminine disciplines such as the humanities and social sciences is explained
by social role theory, as is the marginalization of individuals who defy gen-
der binaries. Judith Butler5 examined roles from the perspective of gender
performance. Here, performance of identity and sex, and how each is out-
wardly represented, highlight how individuals are perceived by others. As
a social construction, gender is based on the performance of individuals in
a range of their social roles. How individuals do “gender”6 results in either
acceptance or rejection in organizations. If women conform to their gen-
der roles, they are seen as too feminine and not measuring up to the ideal
of what it means to be a leader.7 Whereas men who perform outside of
their gender in their leadership roles, for example by building relationships
and by exhibiting collaborative or nurturing behaviors, are rewarded.8
Institutions of higher education have long embraced masculine com-
munities of practice in which campus members know how to act based
on expectations of their gendered identity.9 Typically, these communi-
ties of practice have operated on a binary of women and men. However,
as chapters in this volume highlight, gender roles are undergoing mas-
sive shifts as illustrated by the current problematizing of historic gender
binaries. Shifts such as the emergence of scholarship on trans* individu-
als, particularly for students (such as that explored by Susan Marine in
this volume), are c alling into question the very foundation of gender
performativity that pushes individuals into roles congruent with their
socially constructed gender.10 Also significant is the problematizing of
masculinity as a hegemonic norm that prevents men from living authen-
tically. Counter-hegemonic norms, such as those suggested by Tracy
CRITICAL APPROACHES TO WOMEN AND GENDER IN HIGHER EDUCATION... 327
Davis and Vern Klobassa, have the potential to make higher education
the site of challenging and disrupting gender performance. The prob-
lematizing of the historical constructions of gender and their role in
higher education is only possible with the help of a critical approach to
examine higher education structures and norms.11 Gender perfomativity
is immanent in all aspects of higher education, including language and
discourse, structures, cultures, policy, and physical space.12 Throughout
this volume, authors have endeavored to touch upon how gender is per-
formed and enacted at different levels and by different actors. Calling
attention to unquestioned assumptions of organizational culture that
favors male norms, and highlighting second generation biases13 begins
to identify ways to change practices to become more inclusive. As shown
in the chapters in this volume, there are clear implications for the future
of higher education as a place where change can take place to not just
add more women, but to rethink practices and policies to include parity
and equity perspectives.
Resistance to Change
Traditional norms create a tight hold over change regarding expectations

for women and our understanding of gender. Historical practices and cul-
tures based on masculine communities of practices have been resistant
to change.14 The language and discourse of higher education reinforces
existing norms.15 As with any type of change, fear of the unknown creates
resistance16 as individuals become unsure of their place in a reconstructed
institutional culture. Without change, however, institutions continue to
miss out on the talents of women and individuals not fitting into strict
male-female binaries. Shifting notions of gender and how gender is pre-
formed can help transcend individuals and contribute to group expecta-
tions in the classroom, in residential halls, and in leadership cabinets.
Gender norms are resistant to change, and are constantly reinforced by
discourses both within academia and in the larger society. In this volume,
Tehmina Khwaja, and Susan Iverson and Elizabeth Allan call attention
to the role of discourse in the perpetuation, and indeed, the creation of
gender inequality in higher education. How gender is treated in written
and spoken discourses, for example, in policy and rhetoric, has the power
to reinforce or challenge gender roles and norms. Dominant discourses of
gender binaries and norms are pervasive in higher education policy docu-
ments and leadership rhetoric. Approaching discourses critically can pro-
vide a starting point to overcoming resistance by challenging gendered

structures entrenched in higher education.
Audacious Behavior to Challenge and Change

What is needed to achieve a tipping point? To a large extent, contem-
porary higher education is still in an era of firsts—first gay college and
university leaders, first trans* student supports on campus, first majority
of women community college leaders in a state. A lone individual is not
enough to change the tides of culture and practice. The idea of a critical
mass is required as a start to witness change (critical mass is marked by at
least 30 % or more representation of a particular group).17 As Amy Martin
and KerryAnn O’Meara revealed in their chapter, the state of Maryland
witnessed a tipping point when women leaders reached these levels, both
in representation on hiring boards and as college presidents. The hiring
quotas in Austria are set at 40 % to help create the level of critical mass
known to result in change; however, as Rebecca Ropers-Huilman, Leah
J. Reinert, and Kate Diamond reviewed in their chapter, existing cultures
and structures create resistance to change even when equity policies exist.
Critical mass is a start to addressing parity, but ongoing examination of
structures, policies and practices are also needed to promote equity as
illustrated throughout the volume.
Often, as highlighted by Jeni Hart, feminist faculty suppress their femi-
nist identity to advance in a system whose culture encourages conformity.
The suppression of identity is true of all non-dominant groups in higher
education, such as female and LGBTQ leaders, trans* individuals, and
racial and ethnic minorities. Academic cultures encourage conformity
with powerful gendered and racist structures.18 Even as diversity contin-
ues to remain a buzzword in higher education, true diversity and inclusion
remain elusive. Audacious and agentic behavior recommended by Jeni
Hart is needed at all levels by all stakeholders involved in higher education
and men, women, and those along the gender continuum need to be part
of upending norms and promoting gendered change. Undoubtedly, cou-
rageous behavior is already occurring in higher education ranging from
scholars increasingly critically analyzing gendered and racist discourses, to
trans* stakeholders and their allies seeking more gender inclusive campus
spaces and structures. Diversity in its meaningful form will remain a dream
if higher education participants are forced to suppress their true identities
and their intersectionality or risk career derailment.19 This oppressive side
of higher education remains hidden from the surface until critical perspec-
tives such as those contained in this volume shine a keen light on it.
Change theory posits that a sense of urgency is required to instigate and
motivate individuals to change.20 Leadership acts to facilitate change and
can occur using a top-down approach (such as establishing equity policies)
or using a grassroots approach (such as agentic behavior)21. The urgency
to change depends on how change is framed and how others receive the
message.22 Leaders use a variety of tools to frame and encourage change,
but increasingly, other actors—such as students and faculty—in the insti-
tution are exercising power to advocate for change through the use of
social media.23 Multiple points of leveraging power allow individuals to
conceive of influencing change from their current positions, which can
complement initiatives in place by leaders and policy makers. Increasingly,
audacious behavior within the academy is challenging historic power holds
and creating new opportunities for non-majority individuals.
Feminism in the Trenches
What happens when we take a feminist standpoint and consider women’s
experiences in the center versus on the margins? Several of the authors in
this volume highlight how approaching issues from a feminist perspective
provides alternative view and options. For example, Jeni Hart focused on
what it meant to be a feminist faculty. At work here are both individual
persistence and confrontation of inequities, as well as collective efforts to
address inequity and the need for change. We argue that both types of
efforts are required to improve equity in higher education. But, as this
volume amply points out, individual agency is not enough for large scale
change to occur. We need to instead address issues of entrenched barri-
ers due to structures and policies. Amanda Irvin’s approach to infusing
feminist teaching strategies showcases one means to challenge accepted
practices.
Perspectives such as feminist poststructuralism (FPS) and policy dis-
course analysis (PDA) as explored by Susan Iverson and Elizabeth Allan in
this volume are valuable analytical lenses for identifying gender inequality
in higher education. As Iverson and Allan, and other authors emphasize,
the data on gender in higher education can lead to the conclusion that it
is no longer an issue since women outnumber men in some areas of higher
education such as the student body, and their numbers are improving in
other areas such as positional leadership. Indeed, Tehmina Khwaja asserted
in her chapter that she would have missed gendered nuances in presiden-
tial rhetoric had she not taken the FPS approach to discourse analysis.
Feminist approaches in research, teaching, and service have the poten-
tial to reveal and remedy hidden inequities in higher education. Consider
then, what would occur if a critical stance were taken when contemplat-
ing classroom teaching practices, faculty work, and staff and leadership
roles? Bringing to light underlying cultural assumptions in the academy
that serve as barriers and create a narrow definition of what is acceptable
behavior and actions provides a critical first step to change.
The addition of qualitative and critical lenses such as feminism and inter-
sectionality in the study of higher education provides opportunities to sig-
nificantly address the challenges outlined in the text. Qualitative insights
reveal important information about gender in higher education. As men-
tioned earlier, across the board, the authors note that if we just pay atten-
tion to numbers, the gender problem no longer presents an urgent issue in
higher education. However, even looking at the numbers alone highlights
how the gender spectrum is yet to make inroads into higher education
data. For example, data on higher education leaders completely ignores
individuals on the gender spectrum. A critical orientation regarding gen-
der in higher education moves beyond mere numerical observations.
Implications
A surface assessment of women in higher education may make it appear
that a women’s issue no longer remains in higher education, but this vol-
ume challenges this assumption. After all, more than half of all under-
graduate students are women, women make up half of all new tenure-line
faculty, and increases in women in leadership continue to occur with one
in five colleges led by a woman. Yet, this simplistic overview misses lay-
ers of inequity. The authors in this volume pointed time and again to the
default binary of gender that still pervades higher education research. We
hope that the information presented in this volume highlights the need
to problematize definitions of gender along a broader continuum versus a
simplistic men/women end points.
The sticky floor for women staff, gendered organizations that create
barriers for women’s advancement in leadership, disciplines that are femi-
nized, and the enactment of gender roles along a narrow binary in which
individuals are penalized when they are not “doing gender” in anticipated
sex roles expectations all underscore the lack of gender equity in higher
education. Stakeholder location in the college setting influences how gen-

der is performed and perceived as power, given gendered organizational
structures still privilege heterosexual men. Yet, we are hopeful regarding
reaching a tipping point for change in the academy. The more individu-
als are aware of the issues of discrimination and inattention to the criti-
cal voices pointing out problematic areas of concern, the more people
can potentially help contribute to creating urgency for change.24 Effective
change requires attention to culture, as the development of an inclusive
culture provides more opportunities for expanded concepts of gender,
work family balance, and individual agency to reach the full potential of
all college talent. Indeed, as Ana Martínez Alemán, and Jaime Lester and
Margaret Sallee highlight, generational differences for faculty members
are already creating tensions that challenge ideal worker norms and faculty
work. Attention to the intersections of gender, roles, and structures can
help further push out the boundaries of how individuals are able to work
best in college settings. Importantly, this book provides several implica-
tions for a range of stakeholder groups.
Changes in leadership and organizational administration require
attention to structural elements of the organization that may inadver-
tently be limiting options for women, leaders of color, and individuals of
non-dominant sexual identities. The need exists to constantly question
the hegemonic norms that continue to favor white men over all others.
Critical to this change is the role of language. Just as norms exist for how
individuals should lead, so too are individuals privileged by the use of
gendered language. As Tehmina Khwaja argued, leaders need to pay more
attention to how the use of language supports or hinders the advancement
of women, and importantly, how expectations of rhetoric can be expanded
to become more inclusive. Challenging the tight coupling of language and
identity by gendered norms provides a critical first step in moving for-
ward. Indeed, the review of policy discourse and feminist poststrucualism
by Elizabeth Allan and Susan Iverson revealed that dominant discourses
legitimate performance, such as the “reasonable person” standard they
used to illustrate their point. Insights like these are only possible through
the use of feminist and critical lenses for analysis and review.
The possibility of change is illustrated in Martin and O’Meara’s chap-
ter with Maryland’s case in which a serendipitous alignment of events
led to an unprecedented increase in the number of women presidents
at Maryland’s community colleges. Particularly significant are the struc-
tural changes that occurred to support this outcome, such as dual career
appointments and family friendly policies that made this increase possible.
These findings align with Pamela Eddy and Kelly Ward’s argument for
removal of structural impediments that tend to thwart individual agency.
Women merely working harder or more is not enough to assure change
as hegemonic norms still exist, and complying with the existing cultural
assumptions reinforces the ideal worker norm.
Higher education organizational structures become complicit in pro-
moting the ideal worker norm.25 The ideal of an individual solely dedi-
cated to work takes a toll on faculty members who are working toward
tenure at the same time they are often beginning to start a family. Jaime
Lester and Margaret Sallee recommend a rethinking and restructuring of
tenure and faculty work to dismantle gendered structures of higher educa-
tion institutions, which can allow leaders, the faculty, and the staff to lead
balanced lives. Similarly, Jeni Hart highlights how the feminist identity of
faculty is often suppressed to secure tenure and promotion, once more
bringing to the forefront organizational structures operating around the
ideal worker, with reward structures promoting those who align with the
ideal worker norm. In multiple venues, women and those located on the
gender continuum suppress their identities to align with organizational
expectations in college settings.
Often, in discussion of gender issues in higher education contexts, the
work of female staff is ignored.26 Samantha Ash Armstrong’s research
provides recommendations for both support staff and their supervisors.
Support staff must develop communities of practice, participate in training
opportunities, and highlight their work to their supervisors. These sug-
gestions align with Martin and O’Meara’s findings in Maryland in which
networks provided the basis for the increase in the number of women in
community college leadership positions. As part of the structural changes
required in institutions, more role clarity and mentoring of talented staff
are also important elements to address.
Even when equity policies are put in place, like those in Austria reviewed
by Rebecca Ropers-Huilman, Leah Reinert, and Kate Diamond, struc-
tural and cultural challenges still exist. Here, good policy intentions do
not immediately result in changes in practice. In part, this lack of change
occurs given the dominant discourse in policy formation. Ana Martínez
Alemán notes how the corporatization of higher education has exac-
erbated gender inequity, particularly with rewards tied to research and
grants rather than teaching and service. The fact that funded faculty work
gets rewarded in times of neoliberalism reinforces rather than challenges

the ideal worker norm.
Like leaders and faculty members, student identity clashes with tradi-
tional structures and cultures. Susan Marine holds student affairs person-
nel accountable for changing structures and cultures that are resistant to
the accommodation of identities that do not follow the gender binary.
Student activists are challenging structural boundaries in the case of accep-
tance on campus, as seen in the battle for gender neutral bathrooms27
and gender neutral housing options.28 Providing an inclusive experience
in the classroom provides a foundation for changing practices on campus.
Amanda Irvin’s examples of feminist pedagogical strategies to tackle gen-
der dynamics in classrooms and ensure success of students belonging to all
genders provides a starting point for change.
Future college leaders often get their first exposure to concepts of lead-
ership when they are students. Like senior leaders, student leaders often
face a clash of identities when trying to fit into a masculine model of
leadership. Brenda McKenzie and Susan Iverson’s recommendations for
networking and structural changes for student leaders align with other
authors’ recommendations in the volume such as Martin and O’Meara,
and Irvin. The need to problematize identities across gender, race and
sexual intersectionality continue across stakeholder groups.
Both men and women face a cost when they act outside of their gen-
der expectations.29 Tracy Davis and Vern Klobassa suggest that the pen-
alties imposed on those who do not perform their socially constructed
gender roles can be thwarted by counter-hegemonic norms cultivated by
educators. For example, student development theories, such as Robert
Kegan’s30 construct of self-authorship can be adapted to the specific chal-
lenges associated with gendered norms in college life.
Each of the authors in this book provides a particular slice of stakeholder
experiences in higher education context. Importantly, by considering per-
spectives that are typically on the margins, others are forced to understand
the lived experiences of individuals that differ from themselves. This view-
point provides a means to critically examine how culture, historic norms,
and hegemonic behaviors reinforce an ideal that harms everyone—includ-
ing men. The implications for practice offered by the authors can provide
key features in a playbook for change on college campuses. Examples for
action on campus might include a review and update of policies using a
critical lens, developing leadership development opportunities for a broad
range of individuals, identifying and supporting campus champions for
change, continuously challenging binary reductions of gender, and con-

structing alternatives to the ideal worker norm within the campus culture.
Conclusion
Even though this volume provided a range of strategies to combat insti-
tutionalized systems and structures that favor particular norms based on a
singular focus on white men, more work remains to be done in this area.
In particular, it is necessary to first identify and name problems and bar-
riers preventing the creation of more inclusive higher education institu-
tions. Next, operationalizing change on campus requires work to occur
throughout the institution—with support from leaders. Addressing struc-
tural changes proves difficult when normative assumptions are made that
make invisible the reliance on discourse or culture that favors some over
others.31 As we look forward to research needed regarding women and
what is required to expand conceptions of gender in higher education, we
pose some questions:
1. How do/will current shifts in thinking about women’s roles in

higher education influence how these roles are enacted?
2. What type of agency is expected of women? Does this differ from
what is expected of men?
3. How are contextual differences impacting leadership recruitment
and preparation?
4. What can be done on an individual level? On a collective level?
5. How does the intersection of race/ethnicity/gender influence roles
and the opportunity for advancement?
6. How does an expanded notion of gender impact gender roles in
higher education? What does the future of trans* individuals look
like in higher education?
Solid groundwork was created in this volume to begin to address this

range of questions. Change to the status quo requires pushing thinking
and action on the intersections of gender, race, and ethnicity. Challenging
hegemonic norms of gendered organizations translates to questioning
seemingly foregone assumptions of work in college settings and requires
the development of more inclusive structures and practices.
Notes
1. Burkinshaw, Higher Education Leadership and Women Vice
Organizations”; Acker, “Gendered Organizations and
Intersectionality: Problems and Possibilities.”
3. Ibarra, Ely, and Kolb, “Women Rising: The Unseen Barriers.”
4. Eagley, Wood and Diekman, “Social Role Theory of Sex Differences
and Similarities: A Current Appraisal.”
7. Bilimoria and Piderit, Handbook on Women in Business and
Management.
Colleges.”
Practice.”
11. Ball, Education Reform: A Critical and Post-Structural Approach.
12. Kelan, Performing Gender at Work.
Strum, “Second Generation Employment Discrimination: A
Structural Approach.”

Practice.”
15. Gordon, Iverson, and Allan, “The Discursive Framing of Women
Leaders in Higher Education.”
16. Kezar, How Colleges Change: Understanding, Leading, and
Enacting Change.
17. Burkinshaw, Higher Education Leadership and Women Vice
18. Eagly & Karau, “Role Congruity Theory of Prejudice Toward
Female Leaders.”
Strum, “Second Generation Employment Discrimination: A
20. Kotter, Accelerate: Building Strategic Agility for a Faster-moving
World.

Enacting Change.
22. Eddy, Community College Leadership: A Multidimensional Model
for Leading Change.
23. Heimans and Timms, “Understanding ‘New Power.’”
Enacting Change.


boundaries: Understanding women’s advancement from clerical to
professional positions.”
27. Cavanagh, Queering bathrooms: Gender, Sexuality, and the Hygiene
Imagination.
28. Beemyn, “Making Campuses More Inclusive of Transgender

Students.”
30. Kegan, In Over Our Heads: The Mental Demands of Modern Life.
31. Strum, “Second Generation Employment Discrimination: A

Bibliography
Abes, Elisa S., and David Kasch. 2011. Using queer theory to explore lesbian col-
lege students’ multiple dimensions of identity. In Empowering women in higher
education and student affairs: Theory, research, narratives, and practice from
feminist perspectives, ed. Penny Pasque, Shelley Errington Nicholson, and Linda
Sax, 213–230. Sterling: Stylus.
Abes, Elisa S., Susan R. Jones, and Mary Lu McEwen. 2007. Reconceptualizing
the model of multiple dimensions of identity: The role of meaning-making
capacity in the construction of multiple identities. Journal of College Student
Development 48: 1–21.
ACE Women’s Network. 2013. Our history. Retrieved from http://www.acenet.
edu/news-room/Pages/ACE-Womens-Network.aspx
Achieving the Dream, Inc. & The Aspen Institute. 2013. Crisis and opportunity:
Aligning the community college presidency with student success. Retrieved from
http://www.aspeninstitute.org/sites/default/files/content/upload/CEP_
Final_Report.pdf
Acker, Joan. 1990. Hierarchies, jobs, bodies: A theory of gendered organizations.
Gender & Society 4(2): 139–158.
Acker, Joan. 1992. Gendering organizational theory. In Gendering organizational
analysis, ed. Albert J. Mills and Peta Tancred, 248–260. Newbury Park: Sage.
Acker, Joan. 2004. Sleepless in academia. Gender and Education 16(1): 3–24.
Acker, Joan. 2006a. Inequality regimes gender, class, and race in organizations.
Gender & Society 20(4): 441–464.
Acker, Joan. 2006b. Class questions: Feminist answers. Landham: Rowman &
Littlefield Publishers.
Acker, Joan. 2010. Gendered games in academic leadership. International Studies
in Sociology of Education 20(2): 129–152.

Higher Education, DOI 10.1057/978-1-137-59285-9
338 Bibliography
Acker, Joan. 2012. Gendered organizations and intersectionality: problems and

possibilities. Equality, Diversity and Inclusion: An International Journal 31(3):
214–224.
Acker, Joan, and Jo-Anne Dillabough. 2007. Women “learning to labour” in the
“male emporium”: Exploring gendered work in teacher education. Gender and
Education 19(3): 297–316.
Acker, Joan, and Donald R. Van Houten. 1974. Differential recruitment and con-
trol: The sex structuring of organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly
19(2): 152–163.
Acker, Sandra. 2010. Gendered games in academic leadership. International
Studies in Sociology of Education 20(2): 129–152.
Adams, Maurianne, Lee Anne Bell, and Pat Griffin. 2007. Teaching for diversity
and social justice, 2nd ed. New York: Routledge.
Adler, Robert S., and Ellen R. Peirce. 1993. The legal, ethical, and social implica-
tions of the reasonable woman standard in sexual harassment cases. Fordham
Law Review 61: 773.
Aguirre Jr., Adalberto. 2000. Women and minority faculty in the academic work-
place: Recruitment, retention, and academic culture. Washington, DC: ERIC
Clearinghouse on Higher Education.
Ahmed, Sara. 2012. On being included. Durham: Duke University Press.
Alcoff, Linda, and Laura Gray. 1993. Survivor discourse: Transgression or recu-
peration? Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society 18(2): 260–290.
Allan, Elizabeth J. 2003. Constructing women’s status: Policy discourses of uni-
versity women’s commission policy reports. Harvard Educational Review
73(1): 44–72.
Allan, Elizabeth J. 2008. Policy discourses, gender and education: Constructing
women’s status. New York: Routledge.
Allan, Elizabeth J. 2010. Feminist poststructuralism meets policy analysis: An
overview. In Reconstructing policy in higher education: Feminist poststructural
perspectives, ed. Elizabeth Allan, Susan Iverson, and Rebecca Ropers-Huilman,
11–36. New York: Routledge.
Allan, Elizabeth J. 2011. Women’s status in higher education: Equity matters. ASHE
higher education report, 37, No. 1. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Allan, Elizabeth J., Susan V. Iverson, and Rebecca Ropers-Huilman (eds.). 2010a.
Reconstructing policy analysis in higher education: Feminist poststructural per-
spectives. New York: Routledge.
Allan, Elizabeth, Susan Iverson, and Rebecca Ropers-Huilman. 2010b.
Introduction. In Reconstructing policy in higher education: Feminist poststruc-
tural perspectives, ed. Elizabeth Allan, Susan Iverson, and Rebecca Ropers-
Huilman, 1–10. New York: Routledge.
American Association of Community Colleges. 2010. CEO characteristics.
Retrieved form http://www.aacc.nche.edu/AboutCC/Trends/Pages/ceo-
characteristics.aspx
Bibliography 339
American Association of University Professors [AAUP]. 2011. It’s not over yet: The
annual report on the economic status of the profession 2010–2011. Washington,
DC: Author. http://www.aaup.org/NR/rdonlyres/17BABE36-BA30-467D-
BE2F-34C37325549A/0/zreport.pdf
American College Personnel Association. 1996. The student-learning imperative:
Implications for student affairs [PDF document]. Washington, DC: Author.
http://www.myacpa.org/pub/documents/taskforce.pdf
American College Personnel Association, and National Association of Student
Personnel Administrators. 2015. Professional competency areas for student
affairs administrators. Washington, DC: Printed by authors. http://www.
n a s p a . o r g / i m a g e s / u p l o a d s / m a i n / A C PA _ N A S PA _ P r o f e s s i o n a l _
Competencies_FINAL.pdf
American Council on Education. 1937. The student personnel point of view.
Washington, DC: Printed by author. http://www.myacpa.org/sites/default/
files/student-personnel-point-of-view-1937.pdf
American Council on Education. 1949. The student personnel point of view.
Washington, DC: Printed by author. http://www.naspa.org/images/uploads/
main/Student_Personnel_Point_of_View_1949.pdf
American Council on Education [ACE]. 2009. The CAO census: A national profile
of chief academic officers. Washington, DC: Author.
American Council on Education [ACE]. 2012. The American college president:
2012 edition. Washington, DC: Author.
American Council on Education, National Identification Program. 2013. ACE-
women’s network. http://www.acenet.edu/news-room/Pages/ACE-
Womens-Network.aspx
American Council on Education, and TIAA-CREF Institute. 2007. The American
college president: 20th anniversary. Washington, DC: American Council on
Education.
Arao, Brian, and Kristi Clemens. 2013. From safe spaces to brave spaces: A new
way to frame dialogue around diversity and social justice. In The art of effective
facilitation: Reflections from social justice educators, ed. Lisa M. Landreman,
135–150. Sterling: Stylus Publishing.
Archer, Louise. 2008. Younger academics: Constructions of ‘authenticity’, ‘suc-
cess’, and ‘professional identity’. Studies in Higher Education 33(4): 385–403.
Armenti, Carmen. 2004. May babies and posttenure babies: Maternal decisions of
women professors. The Review of Higher Education 27(2): 211–231.
doi:10.1353/rhe.2003.0046.
Armstrong Ash, Samantha J. 2013. Student affairs support staff: Empowered and
invisible. Dissertation, Washington State University.
Association of American Colleges & Universities. 2002. Greater expectations.
Washington, DC: Author.
340 Bibliography
Astin, Helen S., and Carole Leland. 1991. Women of influence, women of vision: A
cross-generational study of leaders and social change. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Austin, Ann E. 2002. Preparing the next generation of faculty: Graduate school as
socialization to the academic career. Journal of Higher Education 73(1):
94–122.
Avolio, Bruce J., and Sean T. Hannah. 2008. Developmental readiness: Accelerating
leader development. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research
60(4): 331.
Bacchi, Carol L. 1999. Women, policy and politics: The construction of policy prob-
lems. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Bacchi, Carol. 2004. Policy and discourse: Challenging the construction of affir-
mative action as preferential treatment. Journal of European Public Policy 11(1):
128–146.
Bailey, Jean M. 2008. Work and life balance: Community college occupational
deans. Community College Journal of Research and Practice 32(10): 778–792.
doi:10.1080/10668920802325713.
Bain, Olga, and William Cummings. 2000. Academe’s glass ceiling: Societal, pro-
fessional/organizational, and institutional barriers to the career advancement
of academic women. Comparative Education Review 44(4): 493–514.
Baker’s Dozen. 1997. Feminist student voices. In Shaping the future of feminist
psychology: Education, research, and practice, ed. Judith Worell and Norine
G. Johnson, 227–244. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Ball, Stephen J. (ed.). 1990. Foucault and education: Disciplines and knowledge.
New York: Routledge.
Ball, Stephen. 1994. Education reform: A critical and post-structural approach.
Philadelphia: Open University Press.
Ball, Stephen J. 2006. The necessity and violence of theory. Discourse: Studies in
the Cultural Politics of Education 27(1): 3–10.
Ball, Stephen J. 2013. Foucault, power, education. New York: Routledge.
Bandura, Albert. 1997. Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman.
Barata, Paula, Sandeep Hunjan, and Jillian Leggatt. 2005. Ivory Tower? Feminist
women’s experiences of graduate school. Women’s Studies International Forum
28: 232–246. doi:10.1016/j.wsif.2005.04.010.
Barell, John F. 2006. Problem-based learning: An inquiry approach. Thousand
Oaks, CA.
Barkley, Elizabeth. 2010. Student engagement techniques: A handbook for college
faculty. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Barr, Robert, and John Tagg. 1995. From teaching to learning—A new paradigm
for undergraduate education. Change 27(6): 13–25.
Batliwala, Srilatha. 2011. Feminist leadership for social transformation: Clearing the
conceptual cloud. New Delhi: Creating Resources for Empowerment in Action
Bibliography 341
(CREA). Retrieved from https://www.justassociates.org/sites/justassociates.

org/files/feminist-leadership-clearing-conceptual-cloud-srilatha-batliwala.pdf
Bauer, Dale, and Susan Jarratt. 1994. Feminist sophistics: Teaching with an atti-
tude. In Changing classroom politics: Resources for literary and cultural studies,
ed. David B. Downing, 149–166. Albany: NCTE.
Baxter, Judith. 2004. Positioning gender in discourse: A feminist methodology.
New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Baxter Magolda, Marcia. 2008. Three elements of self-authorship. Journal of
College Student Development 49(4): 269–284.
Bechtold, Brigitte H. 2008. Theorizing gender for community college research
and practice. Community College Journal of Research and Practice 32(10):
750–761. doi:10.1080/10668920802325689.
Beddoes, Kacey, and Alice L. Pawley. 2014. “Different people have different pri-
orities”: Work-family balance, gender, and the discourse of choice. Studies in
Higher Education 39(9): 1573–1585.
Beemyn, Brett. 2003. Serving the needs of transgender college students. Journal
of Gay and Lesbian Issues in Education 3(1): 33–49.
Beemyn, Brett Genny. 2005. Making campuses more inclusive of transgender stu-
dents. Journal of Gay & Lesbian Issues in Education 3(1): 77–87.
Beemyn, Brett, Billy Curtis, Masen Davis, and Nancy J. Tubbs. 2005. Transgender
issues on college campuses. New Directions for Student Services 111: 49–60.
Belenkey, Mary Field, Blythe McVicker Clinchy, Nancy Rule Goldberger, and Jill
Mattuck Tarule. 1986. Women’s ways of knowing: The development of self, voice,
and mind. New York: Basic Books.
Bell, Lee Anne. 1997. Theoretical foundations for social justice education. In
Teaching for diversity and social justice: A sourcebook, ed. Maurianne Adams, Lee
Anne Bell, and Pat Griffin, 3–15. New York: Routledge.
Bellas, Marcia L., and Robert Kevin Toutkoushian. 1999. Faculty time allocations
and research productivity: Gender, race and family effects. The Review of Higher
Education 22(4): 367–390.
Bendl, Regine, Alexander Fleischmann, and Christa Walenta. 2008. Diversity
Management Discourse Meets Queer Theory. Gender in Management: An
International Journal 23(6): 382–394.
Bendl, Regine, Mary Ann Danowitz, and Angelika Schmidt. 2013. Recalibrating
management: Feminist activism to achieve equality in an evolving university.
British Journal of Management 25(2): 1–15.
Bensimon, Estela M., and Catherine Marshall. 1997. Policy analysis for postsec-
ondary education: Feminist and critical perspectives. In Feminist critical policy
analysis: A perspective from post-secondary education, ed. Catherine Marshall,
1–21. Washington, DC: Falmer Press.
Bensimon, Estela M., and Anna Neumann. 1993. Redesigning collegiate leader-
ship: Teams and teamwork in higher education. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins
University Press.
342 Bibliography
Berger, Michelle T., and Kathleen Guidroz (eds.). 2009. The intersectional
approach: Transforming the academy through race, class, and gender. Raleigh:
The University of North Carolina.
Berger, Peter L., and Thomas Luckmann. 1966. The social construction of reality:
A treatise in the sociology of knowledge. Garden City: Doubleday.
Bergman, Jonathan, and Aaron Sams. 2012. Flip your classroom: Reach every stu-
dent in every class every day. Eugene: ISTE.
Bernstein, Jacob. In their own terms: The growing transgender presence in pop
culture. New York Times, March 12, 2014. http://www.nytimes.
com/2014/03/13/fashion/the-growing-transgender-presence-in-pop-cul-
ture.html?_r=0
Bess, James L., and Jay R. Dee. 2008. Understanding college and university orga-
nization: Dynamics of the system. Sterling: Stylus Publishing.
Bettis, Pamela J., Debra Jordan, and Diane Montgomery. 2005. Girls in groups:
The preps and the sex mob try out for womanhood. In Geographies of girlhood:
Identities in-between, ed. Pamela J. Bettis and Natalie G. Adams, 69–83.
Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Betz, Michael, and Lenahan O’Connell. 1989. work orientations of males and
females: Exploring the gender socialization approach. Sociological Inquiry
59(3): 318–330.
Bianco, Marcie. Statistics show exactly how many times trans people have attacked
you in bathrooms. Mic, April 2, 2015. http://mic.com/articles/114066/
statistics-show-exactly-how-many-times-trans-people-have-attacked-you-in-
bathrooms#.2OoFOL64p
Bilimoria, Diana, and Sandy Kristin Piderit (eds.). 2007. Handbook on women in
business and management. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.
Billot, Jennie. 2002. Women’s leadership through agency. In Women as school exec-
utives: Research and reflections on educational leadership, ed. Stephanie
A. Korcheck and Marianne Reese, 10–15. Austin: Texas Council of Women
School Executives.
Bilodeau, Brent. 2005. Beyond the gender binary: A case study of transgender
college students development at a midwestern university. Journal of Gay and
Lesbian Issues in Education 3: 29–44.
Bird, Sharon, Jacqueline Litt, and Yong Wang. 2004. Creating status of women
reports: Institutional housekeeping as ‘women’s work’. NWSA Journal 16(1):
194–206.
Birnbaum, Robert. 1988. How colleges work. Cambridge: Harvard University
Press.
Birnbaum, Robert, Estela M. Bensimon, and Anna Neumann. 1989. Leadership
in higher education: A multi-dimensional approach to research. The Review of
Bibliography 343
Bissinger, Buzz. Call me Caitlyn. Vanity Fair, June 30, 2015. http://www.vanity-
fair.com/hollywood/2015/06/caitlyn-jenner-bruce-cover-annie-leibovitz
Bitzer, Lloyd F. 1992. The rhetorical situation. Philosophy & Rhetoric 25(1): 1–14.
Blackmore, Jill. 1999. Troubling women: Feminism, leadership, and educational
change. Philadelphia: Open University Press.
Blackmore, Jill. 2006. Deconstructing diversity discourses in the field of educa-
tional management and leadership. Educational Management Administration
& Leadership 34(2): 181–199.
Blackmore, Jill. 2014. “Wasting talent”? Gender and the problematics of academic
disenchantment and disengagement with leadership. Higher Education Research
and Development 33(1): 86–99.
Blackmore, Jill, and Judyth Sachs. 2012. Performing and reforming leaders:
Gender, educational restructuring, and organizational change. Albany: SUNY
Press.
Blumenthal, Jill A. 1998. The reasonable woman standard: A meta-analysis review
of gender differences in perceptions of sexual harassment. Law and Human
Behavior 22(1): 33–57.
Boatwright, Karyn J., and Rhonda Kaye Egidio. 2003. Psychological predictors of
college women’s “leadership aspirations”. Journal of College Student
Development 44(5): 653–669.
Bock, James. Women made career strides in 1980s census data show marked Md.
Gains. The Baltimore Sun, January 29, 1993. NEWS, 1.A, P#10.
Bograd, Michele. 1999. Strengthening domestic violence theories: Intersections
of race, class, sexual orientation, and gender. Journal of Marital and Family
Therapy 25(3): 275–289.
Bollinger, Lee. 1996. Inaugural address-the inauguration of Lee C. Bollinger.
Retrieved April 13, 2014, from http://ur.umich.edu/9798/Sep24_97/
address.htm
Bolman, Lee G., and Terrence E. Deal. 1984. Modern approaches to understanding
and managing organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Bolman, Lee G., and Terrence E. Deal. 1991. Reframing organizations. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Bolman, Lee G., and Terrence E. Deal. 2008. Reframing organizations: Artistry,
choice and leadership, 4th ed. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Bornstein, Rita. 2008. Women and the college presidency. In Unfinished agendas:
New and continuing gender challenges in higher education, ed. Judith Glazer-
Raymo, 162–184. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Bornstein, Rita. 2009. Women and the quest for presidential legitimacy. In Women
in academic leadership: Professional strategies, personal choices, ed. Diane Dean,
Susan J. Bracken, and Jeanie Allen, 208–237. Sterling: Stylus.
Bourdieu, Pierre. 1988. Homo academicus. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
344 Bibliography
Bourdieu, Pierre. 2001. Masculine domination. Stanford: Stanford University

Press.
Bourdieu, Pierre. 2004. The field of cultural production. Oxford: Blackwell.
Boyer, Ernest L. 2014. Scholarship reconsidered: Priorities of the professoriate. San
Francisco: Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.
Brass, Daniel J., and Marlene E. Burkhardt. 1993. Potential power and power use:
An investigation of structure and behavior. Academy of Management Journal
36(3): 441–470.
Bridges, Tristan S. 2009. Gender capital and male body builders. Body and Society
15: 83–107.
Britton, Dana M. 1997. Gendered organizational logic: Policy and practice in
men’s and women’s prisons. Gender and Society 11(6): 796–818.
Britton, Dana M. 2000. The epistemology of the gendered organization. Gender
and Society 14(3): 418–434.
Brookfield, Stephen. 2005. The power of critical theory for adult learning and
teaching. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Brown, Elizabeth Nolan. The biggest obstacle to gender neutral bathrooms?
Building codes. Reason, April 11, 2014. https://reason.com/archives/2014/
04/11/gender-neutral-bathrooms-building-codes
Brown, Jane Covey, and Rosabeth M. Kanter. 1982. Empowerment: Key to effec-
tiveness. Hospital Forum 25: 6–13.
Brown, Patricia Leigh. The quest for a bathroom that’s neither a men’s nor a
women’s room. The New York Times, March 5, 2005. http://www.nytimes.
com/2005/03/04/us/a-quest-for-a-restroom-thats-neither-mens-room-
nor-womens-room.html
Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2013. Labor force statistics from the current population
survey. http://www.bls.gov/cps/demographics.htm#women
Burke, Peter. 1993. The art of conversation. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Burkinsaw, Paula. 2015. Higher education, leadership and women vice chancellors:
Fitting into communities of practice of masculinities. London: Palgrave
Macmillan.
Butler, Judith. 1990. Gender trouble: Feminism and the subversion of identity.
Butler, Judith. 2004. Undoing gender. New York: Routledge.
Butler, Judith. 2009. Performativity, precarity and sexual politics. AIBR-Revista
de Antropologia Iberoamericana 4(3): 321.
Cahill, Ann J. 2000. Foucault, rape, and the construction of the feminine body.
Hypatia 15(1): 43–63.
Calantuono, Susan. 2010. No ceilings, no walls: What women haven’t been told
about leadership from career-start to the corporate boardroom. Charlestown:
Interlude Productions.
Calás, Marta B., and Linda Smircich. 1992. Re-writing gender into organizational
theorizing: Directions from feminist perspectives. In Rethinking organization:
Bibliography 345
New directions in organization theory and analysis, ed. Michael Reed and
Michael Hughes, 227–253. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Campbell, Alex. 2005. Keeping the ‘lady’ safe: The regulation of femininity
through crime prevention literature. Critical Criminology 13(2): 119–140.
Campbell, Corbin M., and KerryAnn O’Meara. 2014. Faculty agency:
Departmental contexts that matter in faculty careers. Research in Higher
Education 55:49–74. doi:10.1007/s11162-013-9303-x.
Capraro, Rocco L. 2010. Why college men drink: Alcohol, adventure and the
paradox of masculinity. In Men’s lives, 8th ed., ed. Michael Kimmel and Michael
Messner, 157–170. New York: Pearson.
Carmody, Moira. 2003. Sexual ethics and violence prevention. Social & Legal
Studies 12(2): 199–216.
Carmody, Moira. 2005. Ethical erotics: Reconceptualizing anti-rape education.
Sexualities 8(4): 465–480.
Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education. Classification descrip-
tion. Retrieved from http://carnegieclassifications.iu.edu/descriptions/basic.
php
Carrigan, Sarah Wooten, and Roland W. Mitchell. 2015. The crisis of campus sexual
violence: Critical perspectives on prevention and response. New York: Routledge.
Case, Kim A., Heather Kanenberg, and Josephine Tittsworth. 2012. Transgender
inclusion in university nondiscrimination statements: Challenging gender‐con-
forming privilege through student activism. Journal of Social Issues 68(1):
145–161.
Catalano, D., and J. Chase. 2015. Beyond virtual equality: Liberatory conscious-
ness as a path to achieve trans∗ inclusion in higher education. Equity and
Excellence in Education 48(3): 418–435. doi:10.1080/10665684.2015.1056
763.
Catalyst. 2007. The double-bind dilemma for women in leadership: Damned if you
do, doomed if you don’t. Retrieved from http://www.catalyst.org/knowledge/
double-bind-dilemma-women-leadership-damned-if-you-do-doomed-if-you-
dont-0
Cavanagh, Shelia L. 2010. Queering bathrooms: Gender, sexuality, and the hygiene
imagination. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Celebrating chancellor Denton’s arrival. 2005. Retrieved from http://www1.
ucsc.edu/news_events/celebration2005/
Center for the Education of Women [CEW]. 2005. Family-friendly policies in
higher education: Where do we stand?. Retrieved April 15, 2009, from University
of Michigan: http://cew.umich.edu/PDFs/pubs/wherestand.pdf
Chandler, Genevieve E. 1987. The relationship of nursing work environment to
empowerment and powerlessness. Dissertation Abstracts International 47(12).
University of Utah.
Charmaz, Kathy. 2006. Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through
qualitative research. London: Sage.
346 Bibliography
Charmaz, Kathy. 2011. A constructivist grounded theory analysis of losing and

regaining a valued self. In Five ways of doing qualitative analysis, ed. Frederick
J. Wertz, Kathy Charmaz, Linda M. McMullen, Ruthellen Josselson, Rosemarie
Anderson, and Emalinda McSpadden, 165–204. New York: Guilford Press.
Charmaz, Kathy. 2014. Constructing grounded theory, 2nd ed. Los Angeles: Sage.
Chase, Susan E. 2005. Narrative inquiry: Multiple lenses, approaches, voices. In
The Sage handbook of qualitative research, 3rd ed, ed. Norman K. Denzin and
Yvonna S. Lincoln, 651–679. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Chess, Simone, Allison Kafer, Jessi Quizar, and Mattie Udora Richardson. 2004.
Calling all restroom revolutionaries! In That’s revolting: Queer strategies for
resisting assimilation, ed. Mattilda Bernstein Sycamore, 216–236. Brooklyn:
Soft Skull Press.
Chin, Jean L. 2004. Feminist leadership: Feminist visions and diverse voices.
Psychology of Women Quarterly 28(1): 1–8.
Chliwniak, Luba. 1997. Higher education leadership: Analyzing the gender gap.
ASHE-ERIC higher education report, 25, No. 4. Washington, DC: ERIC
Clearinghouse on Higher Education, The George Washington University.
Clance, Pauline R., and Suzanne A. Imes. 1978. The imposter phenomenon in
high achieving women: Dynamics and therapeutic intervention. Psychotherapy:
Theory, Research & Practice 15(3): 1–8.
Clandinin, D. Jean. 2013. Engaging in narrative inquiry. Walnut Creek: Left
Coast Press.
Coates, Jennifer, and Pia Pichler (eds.). 2011. Language and gender: A reader,
2nd ed. Malden: Wiley-Blackwell.
Cohen, Arthur M., and Florence B. Brawer. 2008. The American community col-
lege, 5th ed. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Collins, Patricia Hill. 1997. Comment on Hekman’s ‘truth and method: Feminist
standpoint theory revisited’: Where’s the power? Signs 22(2): 375–381.
Collins, Patricia Hill. 2000. What’s going on? Black feminist thought and the poli-
tics of postmodernism. In Working the ruins: Feminist poststructural theory and
methods in education, ed. Elizabeth St. Pierre and Wanda Pillow, 41–73.
New York: Routeledge.
Collins, Patricia Hill. 2009. Black feminist thought: Knowledge, consciousness, and
the politics of empowerment. New York: Routledge.
Columbia University, Graduate School of Arts and Sciences Teaching Center.
Gender issues in the college classroom. https://teachingcenter.wikischolars.
columbia.edu/. Accessed 14 Jan. 2016.
Connell, Raewyn W. 2005. Masculinities, 2nd ed. Los Angeles: University of
California Press.
Connell, Raewyn. 2009. Gender, 2nd ed. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Connell, Raewyn W., and James W. Messerschmidt. 2005. Hegemonic masculin-
ity: Rethinking the concept. Gender & Society 19: 829–859.
Bibliography 347
Connelly, F. Michael, and D. Jean Clandinin. 2006. Narrative inquiry. In Handbook

of complementary methods in education research, 3rd ed, ed. Judith L. Green,
Gregory Camilli, and Patricia B. Elmore, 477–487. Mahwah: Lawrence
Erlbaum.
Conway, Margaret M., David W. Ahern, and Gertrude A. Steuernagel. 2005.
Women in public policy: A revolution in progress. Washington, DC: CQ Press.
Cook, Bryan, and Kim Young. 2012. The American college president. Washington,
DC: American Council on Education.
Cook, Judith A., and Mary Margaret Fonow. 1986. Knowledge and women’s
interests: Issues of epistemology and methodology in feminist sociological
research. Sociological Inquiry 56(1): 2–29.
Cooper, Joanne E., and Louise Pagotto. 2003. Developing community college
faculty as leaders. New Directions for Community Colleges (123): 27–37.
Coser, Lewis A. 1974. Greedy institutions: Patterns of undivided commitment.
New York: The Free Press.
Costello, Carla A. 2012. Women in the academy: The impact of culture, climate
and policies on female support staff. NAPSA Journal About Women in Higher
Education 5(2): 99–114.
Council of Economic Advisers. 2014. Women’s participation in education and the
workforce: A Whitehouse report. Washington, DC: Printed by author. https://
www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/womens_participation_in_
education_and_the_workforce.pdf
Covino, William A., and David Jolliffe. 1995. Rhetoric: Concepts, definitions,
boundaries. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Crenshaw, Kimberle. 1991. Mapping the margins: Intersectionality, identity
politics, and violence against women of color. Stanford Law Review 43:
1241–1299.
Cress, Christine M., Helen S. Astin, Kathleen Zimmerman-Oster, and John
C. Burkhardt. 2001. Developmental outcomes of college students’ involve-
ment in leadership activities. Journal of College Student Development 42(1):
15–27.
Creswell, John W. 2013a. Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among
five approaches. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Creswell, John W. 2013b. Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed
methods approaches. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Crosson, Patricia H., Kate Douglas, Kerry Ann O’Meara, and Charmian Sperling.
2005. Editor’s choice: A community college leadership academy: Developing
leaders for massachusetts. Community College Review 33(2): 45–63.
Curtis, John W. 2011. Persistent inequity: Gender and academic employment. April
11, 2011. http://www.aaup.org/NR/rdonlyres/08E023AB-E6D8-4DBD-
99A0-24E5EB73A760/0/persistent_inequity.pdf
348 Bibliography
D’Augelli, Anthony R. 1994. Identity development and sexual orientation:

Toward a model of lesbian, gay, and bisexual development. In Human diversity:
Perspectives on people in context, ed. Edison J. Trickett, Roderick J. Watts, and
Dina Birman, 312–333. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Danowitz Sagaria, Mary Ann. 2007. Women, universities, and change: Gender
equality in the European Union and the United States. New York: Palgrave
Macmillan.
Davis, Tracy L. 2002. Voices of gender role conflict: The social construction of
college men’s identity. Journal of College Student Development 43: 508–521.
Davis, Tracy, and Shaun Harper. 2012. Introduction to special issue on men and
masculinities: Promoting learning and development with college men. Journal
of College and University Student Housing 39: 118–123. http://www.nxtbook.
com/nxtbooks/acuho/journal_vol39no1/#/120.
Davis, Tracy, and Jason Laker. 2004. Connecting men to academic and student
affairs programs and services. In Developing effective programs and services for
college men, ed. Gar Kellom, 47–57. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Davis, Tracy L., and Rachel Wagner. 2005. Increasing men’s development of social
justice attitudes and actions. New Directions for Student Services 2005(110):
29–41. doi:10.1002/ss.163.
Davis, Tracy, James LaPrad, and Sean Dixon. 2011. Masculinities reviewed and
reinterpreted: Using a critical approach to working with men in groups. In
Masculinities in higher education: Theoretical and practical considerations, ed.
Jason Laker and Tracy Davis, 147–160. New York: Routledge.
Day, David V., and Michelle M. Harrison. 2007. A multilevel, identity-based
approach to leadership development. Human Resource Management Review
17(4): 360–373.
De Welde, Kris, and Sandra Laursen. 2011. The glass obstacle course: Informal
and formal barriers for women Ph. D. students in STEM fields. International
Journal of Gender, Science and Technology 3(3): 571–595.
De Welde, Kristine, and Andi Stepnick (eds.). 2015. Disrupting the culture of
silence: Confronting gender inequality and making change in higher education.
Sterling: Stylus.
Denston, Iain L., and Judy H. Gray. 2001. Leadership development and reflec-
tion: What is the connection? The International Journal of Educational
Management 15(3): 119–124.
Denton, Denice. 2005. Leading at the edge: Advancing UC Santa Cruz to the next
level of excellence. Retrieved December 29, 2014, from http://www1.ucsc.
edu/news_events/celebration2005/inaugural_address.asp
Department of Justice. 2010. 2010 ADA Standards for Accessible Design.
Washington, DC: Printed by authors. http://www.ada.gov/regs2010/2010A
DAStandards/2010ADAStandards_prt.pdf
Diamond, Lisa M., and Molly R. Butterworth. 2008. Questioning gender and
sexual identity: Dynamic links over time. Sex Roles 59: 365–376.
Bibliography 349
Dienesch, Richard M., and Robert C. Liden. 1986. Leader–member exchange
model of leadership: A critique and further development. Academy of
Management Review 11: 618–663.
Dobele, Angela R., Sharyn Rundle-Thiele, and Foula Kopanidis. 2014. The
cracked glass ceiling: Equal work but uneven status. Higher Education Research
and Development 33(3): 456–468.
Dominici, Francesca, Linda P. Fried, and Scott L. Zeger. 2009. So few women
leaders. Academe 95(4): 25–27.
Doyle, Terry. 2008. Helping students learn in a learner-centered environment.
Sterling: Stylus.
Doyle, Terry, and Todd Zakrajsek. 2015. The new science of learning: How to learn
in harmony with your brain. Sterling: Stylus.
DuBois, William Edward Burghardt. 1903. The souls of black folk. New York:
Bantam Classic Edition.
Duerst-Lahti, Georgia, and Rita Mae Kelly. 1995. Gender power, leadership, and
governance. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Dugan, John P., Michelle L. Kusel, and Dawn M. Simounet. 2012. Transgender
college students: An exploratory study of perceptions, engagement, and educa-
tional outcomes. Journal of College Student Development 53(5): 719–736.
Eagly, Alice Hendrickson, and Linda Lorene Carli. 2003. The female leadership
advantage: An evaluation of the evidence. The Leadership Quarterly 14(6):
807–834. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2003.09.004.
Eagly, Alice Hendrickson, and Linda Lorene Carli. 2007. Through the labyrinth: The
truth about how women become leaders. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business Press.
Eagly, Alice H., and Steven J. Karau. 2002. Role congruity theory of prejudice
toward female leaders. Psychological Review 109(3): 573–598.
doi:10.1037//0033-295X.109.3.573.
Eagly, Alice H., and Sabine Sczesny. 2009. Stereotypes about women, men, and
leaders: Have times changed? In The glass ceiling in the 21st century:
Understanding barriers to gender equality, Psychology of women book series, ed.
Manuela Barreto, Michelle K. Ryan, and Michael T. Schmitt, 21–47. Washington,
DC: American Psychological Association. doi:10.1037/11863-002.
Eagly, Alice H., Wendy Wood, and Amanda B. Diekman. 2000. Social role theory
of sex differences and similarities: A current appraisal. In The developmental
social psychology of gender, ed. Thomas Eckes and Hanns Martin Trautner,
123–174. Mahwah: Erlbaum.
Eagly, Alice H., Mary C. Johannesen-Schmidt, and Marloes L. Van Engen. 2003.
Transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire leadership styles: A meta-anal-
ysis comparing women and men. Psychological Bulletin 129(4): 569–591.
doi:10.1037/0033-2909.129.4.569.
Easterly, Debra M., and Cynthia S. Ricard. 2011. Conscious efforts to end uncon-
scious bias: Why women leave academic research. Journal of Research
Administration 42(1): 61–73.
350 Bibliography
Eckel, Peter D., Bryan C. Cook, and Jacqueline E. King. 2009. The CAO census:
A national profile of chief academic officers. Washington, DC: American Council
on Education.
Eckert, Penelope, and Sally McConnell-Ginet. 2003. Language and gender.
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Eddy, Pamela L. 2003. Views of gender in the community college presidency. The
Community College Enterprise 9(2): 49–64.
Eddy, Pamela L. 2009. Leading gracefully: Gendered leadership at community
colleges. In Women in academic leadership: Professional strategies, personal
choices, Women in academe, vol. 2, ed. Diane R. Dean, Susan J. Bracken, and
Jeanie K. Allen, 8–30. Sterling: Stylus Publishing LLC.
Eddy, Pamela L. 2010. Community college leadership: A multidimensional model
for leading change. Sterling: Stylus Publishing, LLC.
Eddy, Pamela L., and Elizabeth M. Cox. 2008. Gendered leadership: An organi-
zational perspective. New Directions for Community Colleges 2008(142):
69–79.
Eddy, Pamela L., and Tehmina Khwaja. What happened to re-visioning commu-
nity college leadership? A 20-year retrospective. In Gender issues in community
college settings. Symposium conducted at the annual meeting of the American
Educational Research Association (AERA), Philadelphia, April 4–7, 2014.
Eddy, Pamela L., and Kelly Ward. 2015. Lean in or opt out: Career pathways of
academic women. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning 47(2): 6–13. doi
:10.1080/00091383.2015.1018082.
Edwards, Keith E., and Susan R. Jones. 2009. Putting my man face on: A grounded
theory of college men’s gender identity development. Journal of College Student
Development 50: 210–228.
Eggins, Heather. 1997. Women as leaders and managers in higher education.
Bristol: Open University Press.
Ehrlich, Susan. 1999. Communities of practice, gender, and the representation of
sexual assault. Language in Society 28(2): 239–256.
Eicher-Catt, Deborah. 2005. The myth of servant-leadership: A feminist perspec-
tive. Women and Language 28(1): 17–25.
Ely, Robin J., and Debra E. Meyerson. 2000. Theories of gender in organizations:
A new approach to organizational analysis and change. Research in
Organizational Behavior 22: 103–151.
Ely, Robin J., and Deborah L. Rhode. 2013. Women and leadership: Defining the
challenges. In Handbook of leadership theory and practice: An HBS centennial
colloquium on advancing leadership, ed. Nitin Nohria and Rakesh Khurana,
377–410. Boston: Harvard Business Review Press.
Engen, Maroles L.V., Rien Leeden, and Tineke M. Willemsen. 2001. Gender,
context and leadership styles: A field study. Journal of Occupational and
Organizational Psychology 74(5): 581–598. doi:10.1348/096317901167532.
Bibliography 351
European Commission. She figures: Statistics and indicators on gender equality in

science. http://ec.europa.eu/research/science-society/document_library/
pdf_06/she_figures_2012_en.pdf
Evans, Nancy J., Dee S. Forney, Florence M. Guido, Lori D. Patton, and Kristin
A. Renn. 2010. Student development in college: Theory, research, and practice,
2nd ed. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Eveline, Joan. 2004. Ivory basement leadership: Power and invisibility in the chang-
ing university. Crawley: University of Western Australia Press.
Fairhurst, Gail T. 2011. The power of framing: Creating the language of leadership.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Fairhurst, Gail T., and Robert A. Sarr. 1996. The art of framing: Managing the
language of leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Faust, Drew Gilpin. 2007. Installation address: Unleashing our most ambitious
imaginings. Retrieved April 12, 2014, from http://www.harvard.edu/presi-
dent/speech/2007/installation-address-unleashing-our-most-ambitious-
imaginings
Ferguson, Kathy E. 1985. The feminist case against bureaucracy. Philadelphia:
Temple University Press.
Fine, Marlene G. 2009. Women leaders’ discursive constructions of leadership.
Women’s Studies in Communication 32(2): 180–202.
Fisher, Bonnie Sue, Leah E. Daigle, and Francis T. Cullen. 2009. Unsafe in the
Ivory tower: The sexual victimization of college women. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Fizgerald, Tanya. 2014. Women leaders in higher education: Shattering the myths.
Flaherty, Colleen. December 11, 2015. Refusing to be evaluated by a formula.
Inside Higher Ed. https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2015/12/11/
rutgers-professors-object-contract-academic-analytics
Fonow, Mary Margaret, and Judith A. Cook. 2005. Feminist methodology: New
applications in the academy and public policy. Signs 30(4): 2211–2236.
Foucault, Michel. 1976. La volonté de savoir, vol. 1. Paris: Gallimard.
Foucault, Michel. 1977a. The political function of the intellectual. Radical
Philosophy 17: 12–14.
Foucault, Michel. 1977b. Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison, 2nd ed.
Trans. Sheridan. New York: Vintage Books.
Foucault, Michel. 1978. The history of sexuality: Volume I: An introduction. Trans.
R. Hurley. New York: Vintage Books.
Foucault, Michel. 1980. Truth and power. In Power/knowledge: Selected interviews
and other writings 1972–1977 by Michel Foucault, ed. C. Gordon, 109–133.
New York: Pantheon.
Foucault, Michel. 1982. The subject and power. In Michel Foucault: Beyond struc-
turalism and hermeneutics, ed. Hubert L. Dreyfus and Paul Rabinow, 208–226.
Chicago: Chicago University Press.
352 Bibliography
Foucault, Michel. 1986. Care of the self: Volume III of the history of sexuality. Trans.
Robert Hurley. New York: Random House.
Foucault, Michel. 1991. In The Foucault reader: An introduction to Foucault’s
thought, ed. Paul Rabinow. London: Penguin.
Frechette, Julie. 2009. Women, leadership, and equality in academe: Moving
beyond double binds. Forum on Public Policy Online 2: 26.
French, John R.P., and Bertram H. Raven. 1959. The bases of social power. In
Studies in social power, ed. Dorwin Cartwright, 150–167. Ann Arbor: Institute
for Social Research.
Friere, Paulo. 1970. Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Continuum.
Gage, Andrea J., Shelly Mumma, and Susan Fritz. 2004. Exploring the Bermuda
triangle: Review of gender, societal, team and individual leadership theories.
The Journal of Leadership Education 3(2): 35–51.
Garza Mitchell, Regina L., and Pamela L. Eddy. 2008. In the middle: Career path-
ways of midlevel community college leaders. Community College Journal of
Research and Practice 32(10): 793–811. doi:10.1080/10668920802325739.
Gates, Gary J. 2014. LGBT demographics: Comparisons among population-based
surveys. Los Angeles: The Williams Institute, UCLA School of Law. http://
williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/research/census-lgbt-demographics-studies/
lgbt-demogs-sep-2014/.
Gee, James P. 2014. An introduction to discourse analysis: Theory and method.
Geiger, Roger L. 2004. Knowledge and money: Research universities and the para-
dox of the marketplace. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Gerschick, Thomas. 2011. Disability identity intersections with masculinities. In
Giddens, Anthony. 1984. The constitution of society. Berkeley: University of
California Press.
Gildersleeve, Ryan Evely, and Susana Hernandez. 2012. Producing (im) possible
peoples: Policy discourse analysis, in-state resident tuition, and undocumented
students in American higher education. International Journal of Multicultural
Education 14(2): 1–19. doi:10.18251/ijme.v14i2.517.
Glazer-Raymo, Judith. 1999. Shattering the myths: Women in academe. Baltimore:
Johns Hopkins Press.
Glazer-Raymo, Judith (ed.). 2008a. Unfinished agendas: New and continuing gen-
der challenges in higher education. Baltimore: The John Hopkins University
Press.
Glazer-Raymo, Judith. 2008b. The feminist agenda: A work in progress. In
Unfinished agendas: New and continuing gender challenges in higher education,
ed. Judith Glazer-Raymo, 1–34. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Bibliography 353
Gonda, W. V. 2007. The development of leadership identity: A study of young, profes-
sional women. Masters thesis, Mercyhurst College.
Gonzales, Leslie, and David Ayers. under review. A new theoretical approach for
considering the expectations and experiences of community college faculty.
Review of Higher Education.
Gonzales, Leslie D., and Rodolfo Rincones. 2013. Using participatory action
research and photo methods to explore higher education administration as
emotional endeavor. Qualitative Report 18: Article 64.
Gordon, Suzanne P., Susan V. Iverson, and Elizabeth J. Allan. 2010. The discur-
sive framing of women leaders in higher education. In Reconstructing policy in
higher education: Feminist poststructural perspectives, ed. Elizabeth Allan, Susan
Iverson, and Rebecca Ropers-Huilman, 81–105. New York: Routledge.
Gore, Jennifer M. 1995. On the continuity of power relations in pedagogy.
International Studies in Sociology of Education 5(2): 165–188.
Gouws, Amanda. 2012. Reflections on being a feminist academic/academic femi-
nism in South Africa. Equality, Diversity and Inclusion: An International
Journal 31(5/6): 526–541.
Gramsci, Antonio. 2000. In The Antonio Gramsci reader: Selected writings
1916–1935, ed. David Forgacs. New York: New York University Press.
Grasgreen, Allie. Call to action on sexual harassment. Inside Higher Ed,
April 4, 2011. https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2011/04/04/education_
department_civil_rights_office_clarifies_colleges_sexual_harassment_obligations_
title_ix
Green, Denise O. 2006. Historically underserved students: What we know, what
we still need to know. New Directions for Community Colleges 2006(135):
21–28. doi:10.1002/cc.244.
Green, Velvie. 2008. Reflections from one community college leader. Community
College Journal of Research and Practice 32(10): 812–821.
doi:10.1080/10668920802325762.
Greytak, Emily A., Joseph G. Kosciw, and Elizabeth M. Diaz. 2009. Harsh reali-
ties: The experiences of transgender youth in our nation’s schools. New York: Gay,
Lesbian and Straight Education Network.
Griggs, Susan. 2012. Invisible ink: An analysis of meaning contained in gender,
race, performance, and power discourses. Unpublished dissertation, University of
Denver.
Gross, Edward. 1968. Plus CA change…? The sexual structure of occupations
over time. Social Problems 16(2): 198–208.
Gumport, Patricia. 2002. Academic pathfinders: Knowledge creation and feminist
scholarship. Westport: Greenwood Press.
Gutmann, Amy. 2004. Inaugural address. Retrieved April 13, 2014, from http://
www.upenn.edu/president/meet-president/inaugural-address
354 Bibliography
Haber, Paige. 2011. Iron sharpens iron: Exploring the experiences of female col-
lege student leaders. Advancing Women in Leadership 3(1): 86–101.
Haber-Curran, Paige. 2013. The delicate balancing act: Challenges and successes
facing college student women in formal leadership roles. NASPA Journal About
Women in Higher Education 6(1): 71–98.
Hagai, Ella Ben, and Faye J. Crosby. 2016. Between relative deprivation and enti-
tlement: An historical analysis of the battle for same-sex marriage in the United
States. In Handbook of social justice theory and research, ed. Clara Sabbagh and
Manfred Schmidtt, 477–489. New York: Springer.
Hagedorn, Linda Serra, and Berta Vigil Laden. 2002. Exploring the climate for
women as community college faculty. New Directions for Community Colleges
(118): 69–78.
Hall, Roberta M., and Bernice R. Sandler. 1982. The classroom climate: A chilly one
for women? Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges, Project on the
Status and Education of Women.
Harding, Sandra G. 1986a. The science question in feminism. Ithaca: Cornell
University Press.
Harding, Sandra. 1986b. The instability of the analytical categories of feminist
theory. Signs 11(4): 645–664.
Harding, Sandra G. 2004a. Introduction: Standpoint theory as a site of political,
philosophic, & scientific debate. In The feminist standpoint theory reader:
Intellectual and political controversies, ed. Sandra G. Harding, 1–16. New York:
Routledge.
Harding, Sandra G. 2004b. The feminist standpoint theory reader: Intellectual and
political controversies. New York: Routledge.
Hargens, Lowell L., and J. Scott Long. 2002. Demographic inertia and women’s
representation among faculty in higher education. The Journal of Higher
Education 73(4): 494–517.
Harper, Shaun R., and Frank Harris III. 2010. College men and masculinities:
Theory, research, and implications for practice. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Harper, Shaun, Cameron C. Wardell, and Keon M. McGuire. 2011. Men of mul-
tiple identities: Complex individual and identity intersectionality among college
men. In Masculinities in higher education: Theoretical and practical consider-
ations, ed. Jason Laker and Tracy Davis, 81–96. New York: Routledge.
Harris III, F., and Ryan P. Barone. 2011. The situation of men, and situating men
in higher education: A conversation about crisis, myth, and reality about col-
lege students who are men. In Masculinities in higher education: Theoretical
and practical considerations, ed. Jason Laker and Tracy Davis, 50–62. New York:
Routledge.
Harro, Bobbie. 2000. The cycle of socialization. In Readings for diversity and
social justice, ed. Maurianne Adams, 15–21. New York: Routledge.
Bibliography 355
Hart, Jeni. 2005. Activism among feminist academics: Professionalized activism

and activist professionals. Advancing Women in Leadership Online Journal 18.
http://www.advancingwomen.com/awl/social_justice1/Hart.html
Hart, Jeni. 2007. Creating networks as an activist strategy: Differing approaches
among academic feminist organizations. Journal of the Professoriate 2(1):
33–52.
Hart, Jeni. 2008. Mobilization among women academics: The interplay between
feminism and professionalization. NWSA Journal 20(1): 184–208.
Hart, Jeni. 2009a. Creating faculty activism and grassroots leadership: An open
letter to aspiring activists. In Rethinking leadership in a complex, multicultural,
and global environment: New concepts and models for higher education, ed.
Adrianna Kezar, 169–184. Sterling: Stylus.
Hart, Jeni. 2009b. Faculty activism and family friendly policies. In Establishing a
family-friendly campus: Best practices, ed. Jaime Lester and M. Sallee, 125–140.
Sterling: Stylus.
Haslam, S. Alexander, and Michelle K. Ryan. 2008. The road to the glass cliff:
Differences in the perceived suitability of men and women for leadership posi-
tions in succeeding and failing organizations. The Leadership Quarterly 19(5):
530–546.
Hatch, Mary Jo, and Ann L. Cunliffe. 2006. Organization theory: Modern, sym-
bolic, and postmodern perspectives. New York: Oxford University Press.
Hawkesworth, Mary E. 1988. Theoretical issues in policy analysis. Albany: State
University of New York Press.
Hawkesworth, Mary. 1999. Analyzing backlash: Feminist standpoint theory as
analytical tool. Women’s Studies International Forum 22(2): 135–155.
Heberle, Renee. 1996. Deconstructive strategies and the movement against sexual
violence. Hypatia 11(4): 63–76.
Heimans, Jeremy, and Henry Timms. 2014. Understanding ‘new power’. Harvard
Business Review 92(12): 48–56.
Heineman, John. 1994. Campus wars: The peace movement at American
Universities in the Vietnam era. New York: New York University Press.
Helgesen, Sally. 1990. The female advantage: Women’s ways of leading. New York:
Doubleday Currency.
Helms, Robin M. 2010. New challenges, new priorities: The experience of generation
X faculty. Cambridge, MA: Collaborative on Academic Careers in Higher
Education.
Hengehold, Laura. 1994. An immodest proposal: Foucault, hysterization, and the
‘second rape’. Hypatia 9(3): 88–107.
Herman, Jody L. 2013. Gendered restrooms and minority stress: The public regula-
tion of gender and its impact on transgender people’s lives. Los Angeles: The
Williams Institute, UCLA School of Law. http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.
356 Bibliography
edu/wp-content/uploads/Herman-Gendered-Restrooms-and-Minority-
Stress-June-2013.pdf.
Hickman, Gill Robinson (ed.). 1998. Leading organizations: Perspectives for a new
era. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Hill, Darryl B. 2003. Genderism, transphobia, and gender bashing: A framework
for interpreting anti-transgender violence. In Understanding and dealing with
violence: A multicultural approach, ed. Barbara C. Wallace and Robert T. Carter,
113–137. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Hill Collins, Patricia. 2013. On intellectual activism. Philadelphia: Temple
University Press.
Hochschild, Arlie R. 1989. The second shift: Working parents and the revolution at
home. New York: Viking Press.
Hockfield, Susan. 2004. MIT inaugural address. Retrieved April 12, 2014, from
http://hockfield.mit.edu/inaugural-address-16th-president-massachusetts-
institute-technology
Hollenshead, Carol S., Beth Sullivan, Gilia C. Smith, Louise August, and Susan
Hamilton. 2005. Work/Family Policies in Higher Education: Survey Data and
Case Studies of Policy Implementation. In The challenge of balancing faculty
careers and family work, new directions for higher education, ed. John W. Curtis,
41–65. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
hooks, bell. 1989. Talking back: Thinking feminist, thinking black. Cambridge,
MA: South End Press.
hooks, bell. 1991. Theory as liberatory practice. Yale Journal of Law & Feminism
4: 1–12. http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/yjlf/vol4/iss1/2.
hooks, bell. 1994. Teaching to transgress. New York: Routledge.
hooks, bell. 2004. Men: Comrades in struggle. In Men’s lives, 6th ed, ed. Michael
Kimmel and Michael Messner, 555–588. Needham Heights: Allyn and Bacon.
hooks, bell. 2013. Dig Deep: Beyond lean in. The Feminist Wire 10. Retrieved
from http://www.thefeministwire.com/2013/10/17973/
Hornig, Lilli S. 2003. Introduction. In Equal rites, unequal outcomes: Women in
American research universities, ed. Lilli S. Hornig, 2–15. New York: Kluwer
Academic/Plenum.
Hoskins, Keith. 1990. Foucault under examination: The crypto-educationalist
unmasked. In Foucault and education: Disciplines and knowledge, ed. Steven
J. Ball, 29–56. New York: Routledge.
Hughes, Robin. Rockin’ or Rowin’ the boat: 10 responses to institutionalized rac-
ism. Diverse: Issues in Higher Education, June 11, 2014. Retrieved from http://
diverseeducation.com/article/64834/
Hult, Karen M. 1995. Feminist organization theories and government
organizations: The promise of diverse structural forms. Public Productivity &
Management Review 19(2): 128–142. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3380493.
Hunter, Shona. 2008. Living documents: A feminist psychosocial approach to the
relational politics of policy documentation. Critical Social Policy 28(4): 506–528.
Bibliography 357
Hunter, Laura A., and Erin Leahey. 2010. Parenting and research productivity:
New evidence and methods. Social Studies of Science 40(3): 433–451.
Hurtado, Aida, and Mrinal Sinha. 2008. More than men: Latino feminist mascu-
linities and intersectionality. Sex Roles 59(5–6): 337–349.
Husu, Liisa. 2014. Interrogating gender paradoxes in academia: Nordic and
European perspectives. Conference on Gender Equity in Higher Education.
Lund University.
Hymowitz, Carol, and Timothy D. Schellhardt. The glass ceiling: Why women
can’t seem to break the invisible barrier that blocks them from the top jobs. The
Wall Street Journal, March 24, 1986, 61.
Ibarra, Herminia, Robin Ely, and Deborah Kolb. 2013. Women rising: The unseen
barriers. Harvard Business Review 91(9): 60–66.
Iverson, Susan V. 2006. Performing gender: A discourse analysis of theatre-based
sexual violence prevention programs. NASPA Journal 43(3): 547–577.
Iverson, Susan V. 2009. Crossing boundaries: Understanding women’s advance-
ment from clerical to professional positions. NASPA Journal About Women in
Iverson, Susan V. 2011. Glass ceilings and sticky floors: Women and advancement
in higher education. Women as Leaders in Education: Succeeding Despite
Inequity, Discrimination, and Other Challenges 1: 79–105.
Iverson, Susan V. 2012. Constructing outsiders: The discursive framing of access
in university diversity policies. The Review of Higher Education 35(2): 149–177.
Iverson, Susan V. 2015. The risky subject: A policy discourse analysis of sexual
assault policies in higher education. In The crisis of campus sexual violence:
Critical perspectives on prevention and response, ed. S. Carrie Wooten and
Roland W. Mitchell, 15–32. New York: Routledge.
Iverson, Susan V. 2017. Intersections of identity and sexual violence on campus:
centering minoritized students’ experiences. In Critical perspectives on sexual
violence on the college campus: Centering historically marginalized student voices,
ed. Chris Linder and Jessica Harris. Sterling: Stylus.
Iverson, Susan V., Elizabeth J. Allan, and Suzanne P. Gordon. 2017.
Constructing the double bind: The discursive framing of gendered images
of leadership in the chronicle of higher education. In Theorizing women &
leadership: New insights & contributions from multiple perspectives, ed.
Judith Storberg-Walker and Paige Haber-Curran. Charlotte: Information
Age Publishing.
Jaggar, Alison M. 2008. Introduction: The project of feminist methodology. In
Just methods: An interdisciplinary feminist reader, ed. b. Alison M. Jaggar, vii–
xi. Boulder: Paradigm Publishers.
Jardine, Gail M. 2005. Foucault and education. New York: Peter Lang Publishing.
Jarratt, Susan. 2001. Feminist pedagogy. In A guide to composition pedagogies, ed.
Gary Tate, Amy Rupiper, and Kurt Schick, 113–131. New York: Oxford
University Press.
358 Bibliography
Jaschik, Scott. MIT again reviews status of women. Inside Higher Ed, March 21,
2011. Retrieved from https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2011/03/21/
mit_issues_new_report_on_status_of_women
Johnson, Dawn R. 2011. Women of color in science, technology, engineering, and
mathematics (STEM). New Direction for Institutional Research (152):75–85.
Jones, Susan R. 2009. Constructing identities at the intersections. Journal of
College Student Development 50: 287–304.
Jones, Susan R., and Elisa Abes. 2013. Advancing frameworks for multiple dimen-
sions of identity. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
Joye, Shauna, and Janie H. Wilson. 2015. Professor age and gender affect student
perceptions and grades. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning
15(4): 126–138.
Kachchaf, Rachel, Lily Ko, Apriel Hodari, and Maria Ong. 2015. Career-life bal-
ance for women of color: Experiences in science and engineering academia.
Kanter, Rosabeth M. 1977. Men and women of the corporation. New York: Basic
Books.
Kanter, Rosabeth M. 1979. Power failure in management circuits. Harvard
Business Review 57(4): 1–12.
Kanter, Rosabeth Moss. 1993. Men and women at work, 2nd ed. New York: Basic
Books.
Kasch, David, Susan Jones, and Elisa Abes. 2013. Queer theory. In identity devel-
opment of college students. In Advancing frameworks for multiple dimensions
of identity, ed. Susan Jones and Elisa Abes, 191–212. San Francisco: Jossey
Bass.
Kaufman, Michael. 1999. Men, feminism, and men’s contradictory experiences of
power. In Men and power, ed. Joseph Kuypers, 59–83. Halifax: Fernwood
Books.
Kay, Katty, and Claire Shipman. 2014. The confidence code: The science and art of
self-assurance—What women should know. New York: Harper Collins.
Keeling, Richard P. (ed.). 2004. Learning reconsidered: A campus-wide focus on the
student experience. Washington, DC: American College Personnel Association
and National Association of Student Personnel.
Keeling, Richard P. (ed.). 2006. Learning reconsidered 2: Implementing a campus-
wide focus on the student experience. Washington, DC: American College
Personnel Association, Association of College and University Housing Officers-
International, Association of College Unions International, National Academic
Advising Association, National Association for Campus Activities, National
Association of Student Personnel Administrators, and National Intramural-
Recreational Sports Association.
Kegan, Robert. 1994. In over our heads: The mental demands of modern life.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Bibliography 359
Keim, Marybelle C., and John P. Murray. 2008. Chief academic officers’ demo-
graphics and educational backgrounds. Community College Review 36(2):
116–132.
Kelan, Elisabeth. 2009. Performing gender at work. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Kezar, Adrianna J. 2004. Obtaining integrity? Reviewing and examining the char-
ter between higher education and society. The Review of Higher Education
27(4): 429–459.
Kezar, Adrianna J. 2013. New faculty workforce: Drivers, models, and outcomes.
New York: TIAA-CREF Research Institute.
Kezar, Adrianna J. 2014. How colleges change: Understanding, leading, and enact-
ing change. New York: Routledge.
Kezar, Adrianna, and Jaime Lester. 2011. Enhancing campus capacity for leader-
ship: An examination of grassroots leaders in higher education. Palo Alto:
Stanford University Press.
Kezar, Adrianna, and Daniel Maxey. 2013. The changing academic workforce.
Trusteeship 21(3): 15–21.
Kezar, Adrianna, and Deb Moriarty. 2000. Expanding our understanding of stu-
dent leadership development: A study exploring gender and ethnic identity.
Journal of College Student Development 41(1): 55–69.
Kezar, Adrianna J., Anthony C. Chambers, and John Burkhardt. 2005. Higher
education for the public good: Emerging voices from a national movement. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Kezar, Adrianna J., Rozana Carducci, and Melissa Contreras-McGavin. 2006.
Rethinking the “L” word in higher education: The revolution of research on lead-
ership: ASHE higher education report. Hoboken: Wiley.
Khwaja, Tehmina. 2015. The language of leadership: A feminist poststructural
discourse analysis of inaugural addresses by presidents of high profile research
universities. PhD dissertation, The College of William and Mary.
Kimmel, Michael. 2008. Guyland: The perilous world where boys become men.
New York: HarperCollins.
Kimmel, Michael. 2013. Angry white men. New York: Nation Books.
Kimmel, Michael, and Tracy Davis. 2011. Mapping guyland in college. In
Kimmel, Micheal, and Michael Messner. 2010. Men’s lives, 8th ed. Boston:
Pearson.
King, Jacqueline Elizabeth, and Gigi G. Gómez. 2008. On the pathway to the presi-
dency: Characteristics of higher education’s senior leadership. Washington, DC:
American Council on Education.
Kivel, Paul. 2010. Men’s work: How to stop the violence that tears our lives apart.
Center City: Hazelden.
360 Bibliography
Kjeldal, Sue Ellen, Jennifer Rindfleish, and Allison Sheridan. 2005. Deal-making
and rule-breaking: Behind the façade of equity in academia. Gender and
Education 17(4): 431–447. doi:10.1080/09540250500145130.
Komives, Susan R., and Matthew Johnson. 2009. The role of high school experi-
ence in college student leadership development. Educational Considerations
37(1): 30–39.
Komives, Susan R., Julie E. Owen, Susan D. Longerbeam, Felicia C. Mainella, and
Laura Osteen. 2005. Developing a leadership identity: A grounded theory.
Journal of College Student Development 46(6): 593–611.
Kotter, John P. 2014. Accelerate: Building strategic agility for a faster-moving
world. Boston: Harvard Business Review Press.
Kowalski, Theodore J., Robert S. McCord, George J. Petersen, Phillip I. Young,
and Noelle M. Ellerson. 2011. American school superintendent: 2010 decennial
study. New York: Rowman & Littlefield Education.
Krefting, Linda A. 2003. Intertwined discourse of merit and gender: Evidence
from academic employment in the USA. Gender, Work & Organization 10(2):
260–278.
Kuh, George D. 1995. The other curriculum. Journal of Higher Education 66(2):
123–152.
Kuh, George D., and John H. Schuh. 1991. The role and contribution of student
affairs in involving colleges. Washington, DC: National Association of Student
Personnel Administrators.
Kuh, George D., Jill D. Shedd, and Elizabeth J. Whitt. 1987. Student affairs and
liberal education: Unrecognized and unappreciated common law partners.
Journal of College Student Personnel 28(3): 252–259.
Kuh, George D., Katie Branch Douglas, Jon P. Lund, and Jackie Ramin-Gyurnek.
1994. Student learning outside of the classroom: Transcending artificial bound-
aries. ASHE-ERIC higher education report 8. Washington, DC: The George
Washington University, Graduate School of Education and Human
Development.
Kuh, George D., Jillian Kinzie, John H. Schuh, Elizabeth J. Whitt and Associates.
2005. Student success in college: Creating conditions that matter. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Kulis, Stephen. 1997. Gender segregation among college and university employ-
ees. Sociology of Education 70(2): 151–173.
Kvale, Steinar, and Svend Brinkmann. 2009. Interviews: Learning the craft of qual-
itative research interviewing. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Laker, Jason. 2011. Inviting and inspiring men to learn: Gendered pedagogical
considerations for undergraduate teaching and learning environments. In
Laker, Jason, and Tracy Davis. 2011. Masculinities in higher education: Theoretical
and practical considerations. New York: Routledge.
Bibliography 361
Lakin Institute. President’s round table, a national network of African American

Community College CEOs, 2010. Retrieved from http://theprt.pgcc.edu/
LakinInstitute.aspx
Lakoff, Robin. 1973. Language and women’s place. Language in Society 2(1):
45–80.
Lam, Ching Man, Hung Wong, and Terry Tse Fong Leung. 2007. An unfinished
reflexive journey: Social work students’ reflection on their placement experi-
ences. British Journal of Social Work 37(1): 91–105.
Lancaster, Lynn C., and David Stillman. 2002. When generations collide. New York:
HarperCollins.
LaPan, Chantell, Camilla Hodge, Deidre Peroff, and Karla A. Henderson. 2013.
Female faculty in higher education. “The politics of hope”. Schole: A Journal of
Leisure Studies and Recreation Education 28(2): 1–15.
Lather, Patti. 1991. Getting smart: Feminist research with/in the postmodern.
Lather, Patti. 2004. Scientific research in education: A critical perspective. British
Educational Research Journal 30(6): 759–772.
Lather, Patti. 2008. New wave utilization research: (Re)imagining the research/
policy nexus. Educational Researcher 37(6): 361–364.
Lave, Jean, and Etienne Wenger. 1991. Situated learning. Legitimate peripheral
participation. Cambridge: University of Cambridge Press.
Lawhead, Justin. 2013. Leadership identity development in Greek life organizations:
Lessons learned. Phd dissertation, University of Memphis.
Leonard, Mary M., and Brenda A. Sigal. 1989. Empowering women student lead-
ers: A leadership development model. In Educating the majority: Women chal-
lenge tradition in higher education, ed. Carol S. Pearson, Donna L. Shavlik, and
Judith G. Touchton, 230–249. New York: Macmillan.
Lester, Jaime, and Margaret Sallee. 2009. Establishing the family-friendly campus:
Models for effective practice. Sterling: Stylus.
Lester, Jaime, Margaret Sallee, and Jeni Hart. in press. Beyond gendered universi-
ties? Implications of research on gender in organizations. NASPA Journal
About Women in Higher Education.
Lewis, Darell R., and James Hearn. 2003. The public research university: Serving
the public good in new times. Lanham: University Press of America.
Lincoln, Yvonna S., and Egon G. Guba. 1985. Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury
Park: Sage.
Lipman-Blumen, Jean. 1992. Connective leadership: Female leadership styles in
the 21st-century workplace. Sociological Perspectives 35(1): 183–203.
Little, Deandra. 1994. Teaching a diverse student body: Practical strategies for
enhancing our students’ learning. Charlottesville: University of Virginia.
Litzler, Elizabeth, Sheila Edwards Lange, and Suzanne G. Brainard. 2005. Climate
for Graduate students in science and engineering departments. In Proceedings
362 Bibliography
of the 2005 American Society for Engineering Education annual conference &
exposition, Portland.
Longwell-Grice, Robert Micheal. 2002. Working class and working college: A case
study of first generation, working class, first year, white male college students. EdD
dissertation, University of Louisville. http://dx.doi.org/10.18297/etd/854.
Lorber, Judith. 1994. Paradoxes of gender. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Lorber, Judith. 2005. Gender inequality. Los Angeles: Roxbury.
Lorber, Judith. 2011. Gender inequality feminist theories and politics, 5th ed.
New York: Oxford University Press.
Lord, Robert G., and Rosalie J. Hall. 2005. Identity, deep structure and the devel-
opment of leadership skill. The Leadership Quarterly 16(4): 591–615.
Lourde, Audre. 1983. The master’s tools will never dismantle the master’s house.
In This bridge called my back: Writings by radical women of color, ed. Cherrie
Moraga and Gloria Anzaldúa, 98–101. New York: Kitchen Table: Women of
Color Press.
Love, Barbara J. 2010. Developing a liberatory consciousness. In Readings for
diversity and social justice, 2nd ed, ed. Maurianne Adams, Warren J. Blumenfeld,
Carmelita Castañeda, Heather W. Hackman, Madeline L. Peters, and Ximena
Zúñiga, 599–603. New York: Routledge.
Lublin, Joann S., and Daniel Golden. Vanderbilt reins in lavish spending by star
chancellors. The Wall Street Journal Online, September 26, 2006. Retrieved
from https://www3.nd.edu/~newsinfo/pdf/2006_09_26_pdf/Vanderbilt%
20Reins%20In%20Lavish%20Spending%20By%20Star%20Chancellor.pdf
Lykke, Nina. 2010. Feminist studies: A guide to intersectional theory, methodology
and writing. New York: Routledge.
MacKinnon, Catharine A. 1979. Sexual harassment of working women: A case of sex
discrimination. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Madsen, Susan R. 2008. On becoming a woman leader: Learning from the experi-
ences of university presidents. San Francisco: Wiley.
Maes, Katrien, J. Gvozdanovic, S. Buitendijk, I. R. Hallberg, and B. Mantilleri.
2012. Women, research, and universities: Excellence without gender bias. League
of European Research Universities (LERU). www.leru.org
Major, Claire, Michael Harris, and Todd Zakrajsek. 2016. Teaching for learning:
101 intentionally designed educational activities to put students on the path to
success. New York: Routledge.
Manchester, Colleen F., Lisa M. Leslie, and Amit Kramer. 2010. Stop the clock
policies and career success in academia. American Economic Review 100:
219–223.
Marine, Susan Beth. 2011. Stonewall’s legacy: Bisexual, gay, lesbian, and transgen-
der students in higher education. ASHE higher education report 37, No. 4. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Marine, Susan B., and D. Chase Catalano. 2014. Engaging trans* students. In
Student engagement in higher education: Theoretical approaches and practical
Bibliography 363
approaches for diverse populations, 2nd ed, ed. Shaun Harper and Stephen John
Quaye, 135–148. New York: Routledge.
Marine, Susan B., and Ruth Lewis. 2014. ‘I’m in this for real:’ Revisiting young
women’s feminist becoming. Women’s Studies International Forum 47: 11–22.
Marine, Susan B., and Ana M. Martínez Alemán. 2015. Women faculty, profes-
sional identity and generational disposition. Unpublished manuscript.
Marine, Susan B., and Z. Nicolazzo. 2014. Names that matter: Exploring the ten-
sions of LGBT centers and trans* inclusion. Journal of Diversity in Higher
Education 7(4): 265–281.
Marschke, Robyn, Sandra Laursen, Joyce McCarl Nielsen, and Patricia Dunn-
Rankin. 2007. Demographic inertia revisited: An immodest proposal to achieve
equitable gender representation among faculty in higher education. The Journal
of Higher Education 78(1):1–26.
Marshall, Catherine. 1999. Researching the margins: Feminist critical policy analy-
sis. Educational Policy 13(1): 59–76.
Marshall, Catherine. 2000. Policy discourse analysis: Negotiating gender equity.
Journal of Education Policy 15(2): 125–156.
Martin, Amy Beth. 2014. An exploratory examination of the factors contributing
to the increasing presence of women presidents in Maryland Community
Colleges. PhD, dissertation, University of Maryland, College Park.
Martin, Patricia Yancey. 1985. Group sex composition in work organizations: A
structural-normative model. In Research in the sociology of organizations, vol. 4,
ed. Samuel B. Bacharach and Stephen M. Mitchell, 311–349. Greenwich: JAI
Press.
Martínez Alemán, Ana M. 2008. Faculty productivity and the gender question. In
ed. Judith Glazer-Raymo, 142–161. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University
Press.
Martínez Alemán, Ana M. 2014. Managerialism as the ‘new’ discursive masculinity
in the American University: The shape of academic life for women faculty.
Feminist Formations 26(2): 107–134.
Maryland Association of Community Colleges. 2004–2012. Directory of Maryland
Community Colleges. Annapolis: MACC.
Maryland Commission for Women. 1983. Number of doctoral degrees awarded
by program in Maryland Colleges and Universities, 1970 and 1982. In Impact
of a law: Ten years of title IX in Maryland, 31. Annapolis: Maryland State Board
for Higher Education.
Maryland Commission for Women. 1986. Family oriented personnel policies: A task
force report. Baltimore: Maryland Commission for Women.
Maryland Commission for Women. 1993. Number of faculty at Maryland’s public
and private colleges and universities, 1972 and 1981. In Impact of a law: Ten
years of title IX in Maryland, 31. Annapolis: Maryland State Board for Higher
Education.
364 Bibliography
Maryland Commission for Women. 2013. Maryland Department of Human

Relations. Retrieved from http://www.dhr.state.md.us/blog/?page_id=2393
Maryland Higher Education Commission. 1996a. A study of the workforce needs of
Maryland employees. Retrieved from http://www.mhec.maryland.gov/
Publications/research/1996Studies/AStudyoftheWorkforceNeedsof
MDEmployees.pdf
Maryland Higher Education Commission. 1996b. A survey of collaborative projects
of Maryland postsecondary institutions. Retrieved from http://www.mhec.
maryland.gov/Publications/research/1996Studies/ASurveyofCollaborative
ProjectsofMDPSInst.pdf
Maryland Higher Education Commission. 1996c. The status of women in Maryland
public higher education, 1984–1994. Annapolis: Author.
Maryland Higher Education Commission. Retrieved from http://www.mhec.
state.md.us/
Mason, Mary Ann, and Marc Goulden. 2004. Marriage and baby blues: Redefining
gender equity in the academy. Annals of the American Academy of Political and
Social Science 596: 86–103.
Mason, Sally. 2007. Pole star, rising star. Retrieved April 13, 2014, from http://
president.uiowa.edu/speeches/presidential-installation-university-iowa-
pole-star-rising-star
Mason, Mary Ann, Marc Goulden, and Nicholas H. Wolfinger. 2006. Babies mat-
ter: Pushing the equity revolution forward. In The balancing act: Gendered
perspectives in faculty roles and work lives, ed. Susan J. Bracken, Jeanie K. Allen,
and Diane R. Dean, 9–30. Sterling: Stylus.
Mason, Mary Ann, Nicholas H. Wolfinger, and Marc Goulden. 2013. Do babies
matter? Gender and family in the ivory tower. New Brunswick: Rutgers
University Press.
Matua, Athena D. 2013. Multidimensionality is to masculinities what intersection-
ality is to feminism. Nevada Law Journal 13: 341–367.
Mayock, Ellen C., and Domnica Radulescu (eds.). 2010. Feminist activism in aca-
demia: Essays on personal, political and professional change. Jefferson: McFarland
& Company.
McCann, Carole R., and Seung-kyung Kim (eds.). 2010. Feminist theory reader.
McHugh, Maureen C., and Lisa Cosgrove. 1998. Research for women: Feminist
methods. In Women’s work: A survey of scholarship by and about women, ed.
Donna M. Ashcraft, 19–43. New York: Routledge.
McKenney, Cynthia B., and Brent D. Cejda. 2000. Profiling chief academic offi-
cers in public community colleges. Community College Journal of Research &
Practice 24(9): 745–758.
McKenzie, Brenda L. 2015. Leadership identity development in traditional-aged
female undergraduate college students: A grounded theory study. Unpublished
doctoral dissertation, Kent State University.
Bibliography 365
McKinney, Jeffrey S. 2005. On the margins: A study of experiences of transgender

college students. Journal of Gay and Lesbian Issues in Education 3(1): 63–76.
McManus, Dean. 2005. Leaving the lectern: Cooperative learning and the critical
first days of students working in groups. Bolton: Anker.
Menges, Robert J., and William H. Exum. 1983. Barriers to the progress of
women and minority faculty. The Journal of Higher Education 54(2): 123–144.
Mertens, Donna M. 2014. Research and evaluation in education and psychology:
Integrating diversity with quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods.
Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Metcalf, Amy Scott, and Sheila Slaughter. 2008. The differential effects of aca-
demic capitalism on women in the academy. In Unfinished agendas: New and
continuing gender challenges in higher education, ed. Judith Glazer-Raymo,
80–111. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
Meyers, Chet, and Thomas Jones. 1993. Promoting active learning: Strategies for
the college classroom. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Meyerson, Debra E. 2003. Tempered radicals: How everyday leaders inspire change
at work. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Publishing.
Meyerson, Debra, and Megan Tompkins. 2007. Tempered radicals as institutional
change agents: The case of advancing gender equity at the University of
Michigan. Harvard Journal of Law & Gender 30: 303–322.
Michaelson, Larry, Arlette Knight, and L. Dee Fink. 2004. Team-based learning:
A transformative use of small groups in college teaching. Sterling: Stylus.
Mills, Sara. 1997. Discourse. New York: Routledge.
Mintzberg, Henry. 1979. The structuring of organizations. Upper Saddle River:
Prentice Hall.
Misra, Joya, and Jennifer Lundquist. How midcareer faculty members can find
time for mentoring. March 10, 2016. https://www.insidehighered.com/
advice/2016/03/10/how-midcareer-faculty-members-can-find-time-
mentoring-essay?width=775&height=500&iframe=true
Misra, Joya, Jennifer Hickes Lundquist, Elissa Holmes, and Stephanie Agiomavritis.
2011. The ivory ceiling of service work. Academe 97(1). https://www.aaup.
org/article/ivory-ceiling-service-work#.V1jawI-cGM8
Misra, Joya, Jennifer Lundquist, and Abby A. Templer. 2012. Gender, work time,
and care responsibilities among faculty. Sociological Forum 27(2): 300–323.
Modern Language Association. 2009. Standing still: The associate professor survey.
New York: Author. Retrieved from https://www.mla.org/content/down-
load/3120/80834/cswp_final042909.pdf
Moi, Toril. 1991. Appropriating Bourdieu: Feminist theory and Pierre Bourdieu’s
sociology of culture. New Literary History 20(4): 1017–1049.
Molloy, Parker Marie. Op-Ed: It’s time to stop with the T-word. The Advocatex,
February 20, 2014. http://www.advocate.com/commentary/2014/02/20/
op-ed-its-time-stop-t-word
366 Bibliography
Montoya, Lisa J. 1996. Latino gender differences in public opinion: Results from
the Latino national political survey. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences
18(2): 255–276.
Morgan, Gareth. 2006. Imagines of organizations. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Morley, Louise. 1999. Organising feminisms: The micropolitics of the academy.
New York: St. Martin’s Press.
Morley, Louise. 2013. The rules of the game: Women and the leaderist turn in
higher education. Gender and Education 25(1): 116–131.
Morley, Louise, and Barbara Crossouard. 2016. Gender in the neoliberalised
global academy: The affective economy of women and leadership in south Asia.
British Journal of Sociology of Education 37(1): 149–168.
Morphew, Christopher C., and Jeroen Huisman. 2002. Using institutional theory
to reframe research on academic drift. Higher Education in Europe 27(4):
492–506.
Morris, Tracy L., and Joseph S. Laipple. 2015. How prepared are academic admin-
istrators? Leadership and job satisfaction within US Research Universities.
Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management 37(2): 241–251.
Mouffe, Chantal. 1997. Feminism, citizenship, and radical democratic politics. In
Feminist social thought: A reader, ed. Diana T. Meyers, 533–544. New York:
Routledge.
Müller, Ursula. 2007. Between change and resistance: Gender structures and gen-
der cultures in German institutions of higher education. In Women, universities
and change: Gender equality in the European Union and the United States, ed.
Mary Ann Danowitz Sagaria, 23–41. New York: Palgrave.
Muñoz, Martha. 2009. In their own words and by the numbers: A mixed-methods
study of Latina community college presidents. Community College Journal of
Research and Practice 34(1–2): 153–174. doi:10.1080/10668920903385939.
Murnan, Sarah K., and Marla H. Kohlman. 2007. Athletic participation, fraternity
membership, and sexual aggression among college men: A meta-analytic review.
Sex Roles 57: 145–157.
Murray, John P., Judy I. Murray, and Cliff Summar. 2000. The propensity of com-
munity college chief academic officers to leave an institution. Community
College Review 28(3): 22–35.
National Association of Student Personnel Administrators, and American College
Personnel Association. 2004. Learning reconsidered: A campus-wide focus on the
student experience. Washington, DC: Printed by authors. https://www.naspa.
org/images/uploads/main/Learning_Reconsidered_Report.pdf
National Center for Education Statistics. 2005. 2004 national study of postsecond-
ary faculty report on faculty and instructional staff. Washington, DC:
U.S. Department of Education.
National Center for Education Statistics [NCES]. 2012. Digest of educational sta-
tistics 2011. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. http://nces.
ed.gov/programs/digest/d12/tables/dt12_221.asp.
Bibliography 367
National Center for Education Statistics. 2014. Full-time faculty in degree-granting

postsecondary institutions, by race/ethnicity, sex, and academic rank: Fall 2009, fall
2011, and fall 2013 [Table 315.20]. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of
Education. https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d14/tables/dt14_315.20.asp
National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). 2015. Digest of educational sta-
tistics: 2015. Washington, DC: Author.
National Council of the Republic of Austria. Universities Act of 2002. http://
www.uibk.ac.at/index/finanzabteilung/ug2002_englisch.pdf
Nevarez, Carlos, and J. Luke Wood. 2010. Community college leadership and
administration: Theory, practice, and change, vol. 3. New York: Peter Lang.
New York Times. ‘Ask first’ at Antioch. October 11, 1993. http://www.nytimes.
com/1993/10/11/opinion/ask-first-at-antioch.html
Newson, Janice. 2012. Academic feminism’s entanglements with university corpo-
ratization. TOPIA: Canadian Journal of Cultural Studies 1(28): 41–63.
Nicolazzo, Z. 2014. Just go in looking good: The resilience, resistance, and kinship
building of trans* college students. PhD dissertation, Miami University.
OhioLINK (miami1426251164).
Nicolazzo, Z., and Susan B. Marine. 2015. It will change if people keep talking:
Trans* students in college and university housing. Special issue, Journal of
College and University Student Housing 42(1):160–177.
Nidiffer, Jana. 2001. New leadership for a new century. In Women administrators
in higher education: Historical and contemporary perspectives, ed. Jana Nidiffer
and Carolyn Terry Bashaw, 101–134. New York: State University of New York
Press.
O’Connor, Pat. 2014. Understanding success: A case study of gendered change in
the professoriate. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management 36(2):
212–244.
O’Meara, Kerry Ann. 2015. A career with a view: Agentic perspectives of women
faculty. The Journal of Higher Education 86(3): 331–359.
O’Meara, Kerry Ann, Corbin Campbell, and Aimee Terosky. 2011. Living agency
in the academy: A conceptual framework for research and action. Paper presented
at the Annual Meeting of the Association for the Study of Higher Education,
Charlotte.
O’Neil, James M., Barbara J. Helms, Robert K. Gable, Laurence David, and
Lawrence S. Wrightsman. 1986. Gender role conflict scale: Men’s fear of femi-
ninity. Sex Roles 14: 335–350.
Opp, Ronald D., and Penny Poplin Gosetti. 2002. Women full-time faculty of
color in 2-year colleges: A trend and predictive analysis. Community College
Journal of Research & Practice 26(7–8): 609–627.
doi:10.1080/10668920290102743.
Osgood, Jayne. 2009. Childcare workforce reform in england and ‘the early years
professional’: A critical discourse analysis. Journal of Education Policy 24(6):
733–751.
368 Bibliography
Owen, Julie E. 2012. Using student development theories as conceptual frame-

works in leadership education. New Directions for Student Services. 140: 17–35.
Ozga, Jenny. 2000. Policy research in educational settings: Contested terrain.
Philadelphia: Open University Press.
Padavic, Irene, and Barbara F. Reskin. 2002. Men and women at work. Thousand
Oaks: Pine Forge Press.
Paechter, Carrie F. 2003. Masculinities and femininities as communities of prac-
tice. Women’s Studies International Forum 26(1): 69–77.
Park, Shelley M. 1996. Research, teaching, and service: Why shouldn’t women’s
work count? Journal of Higher Education 67(1): 46–84.
Pascoe, C.J. Dude. 2007. You’re a fag: Masculinity and sexuality in high school. Los
Angeles: University of California Press.
Patterson, Bryan. 2012. Influences of student organizational leadership experi-
ences in college students leadership behaviors. E Journal of Organizational
Learning & Leadership 10(1): 1–12.
Patton, Lori D., and Gloria Ladson-Billings. 2010. Culture centers in higher edu-
cation: Perspectives on identity, theory, and practice. Sterling: Stylus.
Paxson, Christina H. 2012. Inauguration address: The value of imagination.
Retrieved April 12, 2014, from http://brown.edu/about/administration/
president/2012-inauguration-address
Payne, Lindsay. 2002. Gendered jobs and gathered workers: Barriers to gender equal-
ity in gendered organizations. Guelph: University of Guelph, Centre for
Families, Work and Well-Being.
Pease, John. 1993. Professor mom: Women’s work in a man’s world. Sociological
Forum 8(1): 133–139. http://www.jstor.org/stable/684288.
Pechar, Hans. 2005. University Autonomy in Austria. HOFO working paper
series: IFF_hofo.05.001. Vienna, IFF (Faculty for Interdisciplinary Studies).
http://www.iff.ac.at/hofo/WP/IFF_hofo.05.001_pechar_autonomy.pdf
Pechar, Hans, and Ada Pellert. 2004. Austrian universities under pressure from
bologna. European Journal of Education 39(3): 317–330.
Pellert, Ada, and Michaela Gindl. 2007. Gender equity and higher education
reform in Austria. In Women, universities, and change: Gender equality in the
European Union and the United States, ed. Mary Ann Danowitz Sagaria, 61–72.
New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Perna, Laura W. 2001a. Sex and race differences in faculty tenure and promotion.
Research in Higher Education 42(5): 541–567.
Perna, Laura W. 2001b. The relationship between family responsibilities and
employment status among college and university faculty. The Journal of Higher
Education 72(5): 584–611.
Peter, Katharin, and Laura Horn. 2005. Gender differences in participation and
completion of undergraduate education and how they have changed over time.
Postsecondary education descriptive analysis reports (NCES 2005-169).
Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Bibliography 369
Petersen, Christina, and Kristen Gorman. 2014. Strategies to address common

challenges when teaching in an active learning classroom. New Directions in
Teaching and Learning (137): 63–70.
Pfeffer, Jeffrey. 1992. Managing with power: Politics and influence in organiza-
tions. Boston: Harvard Business Press.
Phelps, Donald G., Lynn Taber, and Cindra Smith. 1996. African American com-
munity college presidents. Community College Review 24(4): 3–26.
Pillow, Wanda. 2003. ‘Bodies are dangerous’: Using feminist genealogy as policy
studies methodology. Journal of Education Policy 18(2): 145–159.
Pillow, Wanda S. 2015. Policy temporality and marked bodies: Feminist praxis
amongst the ruins. Critical Studies in Education 56(1): 55–70.
Pittinsky, Todd L., Laura M. Bacon, and Brian Welle. 2007. The great woman
theory of leadership? Perils of positive stereotypes and precarious pedestals. In
Women and leadership: The state of play and strategies for change, ed. Barbara
Kellerman and Deborah L. Rhode, 93–117. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Polkinghorne, Donald E. 1995. Narrative configuration as qualitative analysis. In
Life history and narrative, ed. J. Amos Hatch and Richard Wisniewski, 5–25.
London: Falmer Press.
Pollack, William. 1988. Real boys: Rescuing our sons from the myths of boyhood.
New York: Henry Holt and Company, LLC..
Porter, Stephen. 2007. A closer look at faculty service: What affects participation
on committees. Journal of Higher Education 78(5): 532–541.
Postsecondary Governance Structures Database (Education Commission of the
States). n.d. Retrieved from http://www.ecs.org/html/educationIssues/
Governance/GovPSDB_intro.asp
Prado, Carlos G. 1995. Starting with Foucault: An introduction to genealogy.
Boulder: Westview Press.
Pribbenow, Christine M., Jennifer Sheridan, Jessica Winchell, Deveny Benting, Jo
Handelsman, and Molly Carnes. 2010. The tenure process and extending the
tenure clock: The experience of faculty at one university. Higher Education
Policy 23: 17–38.
Pryor, Jonathan T. 2015. Out in the classroom: Transgender student experiences
at a large public university. Journal of College Student Development 56(5):
440–455.
Pusch, Rob S. 2005. Objects of curiosity: Transgender college students’ percep-
tions of the reactions of others. Journal of Gay and Lesbian Issues in Education
3(1): 45–61.
Pyke, Joanne. 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.
Quinn, Kate. 2010. Tenure clock extension policies: Who uses them and to what
effect? NASPA Journal About Women in Higher Education 3(1): 182–206.
370 Bibliography
Rankin, Susan, Genevieve Weber, Warren Blumenfeld, and Somjen Frazier. 2010.
State of higher education for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people.
Charlotte: Campus Pride.
Razack, Sherene. 1994. From consent to responsibility, from pity to respect:
Subtexts in cases of sexual violence involving girls and women with develop-
mental disabilities. Law & Social Inquiry 19(4): 891–922.
Reed, Brian. 2011. Socio-economic and work identity intersections with masculin-
ity and college success. In Masculinities in higher education: Theoretical and
practical considerations, ed. Jason Laker and Tracy Davis, 111–129. New York:
Routledge.
Rees, Teresa. 2007. Pushing the gender equality agenda forward in the European
Union. In Women, universities, and change: Gender equality in the European
Union and the United States, ed. Mary Ann Danowitz Sagaria, 7–22. New York:
Palgrave Macmillan.
Reichard, Rebecca J., and Susan J. Paik. 2011. Developing the next generation of
leaders: Research, policy, and practice. In Early Development and Leadership:
Building the Next Generation of Leaders, eds. Susan Elaine Murphy and Rebecca
J. Reichard, 309–328. New York: Taylor & Francis.
Reif, L. Rafael. 2012. Inaugural address. c April 12, 2014, from http://president.
mit.edu/speeches-writing/inaugural-address
Reille, Audrey, and Adrianna Kezar. 2010. Balancing the pros and cons of com-
munity college ‘grow-your-own’ leadership programs. Community College
Review 38(1): 59–81.
Reinharz, Shulamit, and Lynn Davidman. 1992. Feminist methods in social research.
New York, NY.
Reynolds, Kae. 2011. Servant-leadership as gender-integrative leadership: Paving
a path for more gender-integrative organizations through leadership education.
Journal of Leadership Education 10(2): 155–171.
Rhoades, Gary. 2009. From the general secretary: What we do to our young.
Academe 95(3). http://www.aaup.org/article/general-secretary-what-we-do-
our-young#.VpQto5MrLOQ
Rhode, Deborah L., and Barbara Kellerman. 2007. Women and leadership: The
state of play. In Women and leadership: The state of play and strategies for change,
ed. Barbara Kellerman and Deborah L. Rhode, 1–35. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Richie, Beth. 1996. Compelled to crime: The gender entrapment of battered black
women. New York: Routledge.
Romano, Donna M. 2004. Making the paradigm shift: Enhancing communication
for clients with Alzheimer’s disease using a client-centered approach. Journal of
the American Psychiatric Nurses Association 10(2): 81–85.
Ropers-Huilman, Rebecca. 1998. Feminist teaching in theory and practice:
Situating power and knowledge in poststructural classrooms. New York: Teacher’s
College Press.
Bibliography 371
Ropers-Huilman, Rebecca. 2003. Gendered futures in higher education: Critical

perspectives for change. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Ropers-Huilman, Rebecca, and Kelly Winters. 2011. Feminist research in higher
education. Journal of Higher Education 82(6): 667–690.
Rosener, J. B. 1990. Ways women lead. Harvard Business Review 68(6):
119–125.
Ross, Scott R., Jane Stewart, Molly Mugge, and Brandy Fultz. 2001. The imposter
phenomenon, achievement dispositions, and the five factor model. Personality
and Individual Differences 31(8): 1347–1355.
Rosser, Vicki J. 2004a. A national study on midlevel leaders in higher education:
The unsung professionals of the academy. Higher Education: The International
Journal of Higher Education and Planning 48(3): 317–337
Rosser, Sue Vilhauer. 2004b. The science glass ceiling: Academic women scientists
and the struggle to succeed. New York, NY: Routledge Press.
Rouse, Hana N. Faust addresses her role as first female president. The Harvard
Crimson, October 23, 2012. Retrieved from http://www.thecrimson.com/
article/2012/10/23/faust-role-female/
Rubin, Gayle S. 2011. The traffic in women: Notes on the ‘political economy’ of
sex. In Deviations: A Gayle Rubin reader, ed. Gayle Rubin, 33–65. Durham:
Duke University Press.
Rubin, Herbert J., and Irene S. Rubin. 2011. Qualitative interviewing: The art of
hearing data. Los Angeles: Sage.
Saenz, Victor B., and Luis Ponjuan. 2009. The vanishing Latino male in higher
education. Journal of Hispanic Higher Education 8: 54–89.
doi:10.1177/1538192708326995.
Sagaria, Mary Ann Danowitz. 1988. The case for empowering women as leaders
in higher education. New Directions for Student Services 44: 5–11.
Sallee, Margaret. 2012. The ideal worker or the ideal father: Organizational struc-
tures and culture in the gendered university. Research in Higher Education
53(7): 782–802.
Sallee, Margaret W. 2014. Faculty fathers: Toward a new ideal in the research uni-
versity. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Sandberg, Sheryl. 2013. Lean in: Women, work, and the will to lead. New York:
Alfred A. Knopf/Random House.
Sandler, Bernice R., Lisa A. Silverberg, and Roberta M. Hall. 1996. The chilly
classroom climate: A guide to improve the education of women. Washington, DC:
The National Association for Women in Education.
Sarmiento, Teresa P., Heather K. Spence Laschinger, and Carroll Iwasiw. 2004.
Nurse educators’ workplace empowerment, burnout, and job satisfaction:
Testing Kanter’s theory. Journal of Advanced Nursing 46(2): 134–143.
Saunders, Daniel B. 2010. Neoliberal ideology and public higher education in the
United States. Journal for Critical Education Policy Studies 8(1): 41–77.
372 Bibliography
Sayer, Liana C., Suzanne M. Bianchi, and John P. Robinson. 2004. Are parents
investing less in children? Trends in mothers’ and fathers’ time with children.
American Journal of Sociology 110(1): 1–43.
Schein, Virginia E. 2001. A global look at psychological barriers to women’s prog-
ress in management. Journal of Social Issues 57(4): 675–688.
Scheurich, James Joseph. 1994. Policy archaeology: A new policy studies method-
ology. Journal of Education Policy 9(4): 297–316.
Schiebinger, Lona, Andrea D. Henderson, and Shannon K. Gilmartin. 2008.
Dual-career academic couples: What universities need to know. Stanford: Michelle
R. Clayton Institute for Gender Research.
Schillebeeckx, Maximiliaan, Brett Maricque, and Cory Lewis. 2013. The missing
piece to changing the university culture. Nature Biotechnology 31: 938–941.
Schlissel, Mark S. 2014. The power of ideas and the value of all voices. Retrieved
January 31, 2015, from https://president.umich.edu/speeches-statements/
speeches/inaugural-address-the-power-of-ideas-and-the-value-of-all-voices/
Schön, Donald. 1987. Educating the reflective practitioner. San Francisco: Jossey-
Bass Publishers.
Schuster, Jack H., and Martin J. Finkelstein. 2006. The American faculty: The
restructuring of academic work and careers. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University
Press.
Seltzer, Rena. 2015. The coach’s guide for women professors who want a successful
career and a well-balanced life. Sterling: Stylus.
Shaffer, Robert H. 1999. Student personnel problems requiring a campus wide
approach. Journal of College Student Development 40(5): 463–468.
Shafritz, Jay, J. Ott, and Yong Jang. 2015. Classics of organization theory. Boston:
Cengage Learning.
Shaw, Sara E. 2010. Reaching the parts that other theories and methods can’t
reach: How and why a policy-as-discourse approach can inform health-related
policy. Health 14(2): 196–212.
Shaw, Kathleen M., M. Kate Callahan, and Kimberly Lechasseur. 2008. Female
faculty in the community college: Approaching equity in a low-status sector. In
ed. Judith Glazer-Raymo, 211–229. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University
Press.
Shehane, Melissa R., Kathryn A. Sturtevant, Lori L. Moore, and Kim E. Dooley.
2012. First-year student perceptions related to leadership awareness and influ-
ences. Journal of Leadership Education 11(1): 140–156.
Shults, Christopher. 2001. The critical impact of impending retirements on com-
munity college leadership, Research brief leadership series, No. 1, AACC-RB-01-5.
Washington, DC: American Association of Community Colleges.
Simola, Hannu, Sakari Heikkinen, and Jussi Silvonen. 1998. A catalog of possibili-
ties: Foucaultian history of truth and education research. In Foucault’s chal-
Bibliography 373
lenge: Discourse, knowledge, and power in education, ed. Thomas S. Popkewitz

and Marie Brennan, 64–90. New York: Teacher’s College Press.
Simon, Herbert. 1956. Rational choice and the structure of the environment.
Psychological Review 63(2): 129–138.
Slaughter, Sheila, and Gary Rhoades. 2004. Academic capitalism and the new econ-
omy: Markets, state, and higher education. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University
Press.
Sloma-Williams, L., Sharon McDade, Rosalyn Richman, and Page Morahan.
2009. The role of self-efficacy in developing women leaders. In Women in aca-
demic leadership: Professional strategies, personal choices, ed. Diane R. Dean,
Susan J. Bracken, and Jeanie K. Allen, 50–73. Sterling: Stylus.
Smircich, Linda, and Gareth Morgan. 1982. Leadership: The management of
meaning. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 18(3): 157–273.
Smith, Dorothy E. 1990. Texts, facts, and femininity: Exploring the relations of rul-
ing. London: Routledge.
Smothers, Thairin (producer). 2006. TransGeneration (television series).
New York: Sundance Channel.
Snyder, Thomas D., and Sally A. Dillow. 2013. Digest of education statistics 2012
(NCES 2014-015). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute
of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics.
Snyder, Thomas D., and Sally A. Dillow. 2015. Digest of education statistics 2013
(NCES 2015-011). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics,
Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.
Solorzano, Daniel G., and Tara J. Yosso. 2002. Critical race methodology:
Counter-storytelling as an analytical framework for education research.
Qualitative Inquiry 8(1): 23–44.
Sowards, Stacey K., and Valerie R. Renegar. 2006. Reconceptualizing rhetorical
activism in contemporary feminist contexts. The Howard Journal of
Communications 17(1): 57–74.
Spade, Dean. 2008. Fighting to win. In That’s revolting: Queer strategies for resist-
ing assimilation, rev. ed., ed. Mattilda Bernstein Sycamore, 51–67. Berkeley:
Soft Skull Press.
Spade, Dean. 2011. Normal life: Administrative violence, critical trans politics,
and the limitations of law. Cambridge, MA: South End Press.
Spender, Dale. 1981. Man made language. London: Pandora Press.
Sporn, Barbara. 2007. University adaptation and gender equality: A case study of
the Vienna University of Economics and Business Administration. In Women,
universities, and change: Gender equality in the European Union and the United
States, ed. Mary Ann Danowitz Sagaria, 73–88. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Sprague, Joey. 2005. Feminist methodologies for critical researchers: Bridging differ-
ences. Walnut Creek: Rowman Altamira.
374 Bibliography
Srikantiah, Jayashri. 2007. Perfect victims and real survivors: The iconic victim in
domestic human trafficking law. Boston Law Review 87: 157–211.
St. Pierre, Elizabeth A. 2000. Poststructural feminism in education: An overview.
International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education 13(5): 477–515.
St. Pierre, Elizabeth Adams. 2006. Scientifically based research in education:
Epistemology and ethics. Adult Education Quarterly 56(4): 239–266.
Staunaes, Dorthe. 2003. Where have all the subjects gone? Bringing together the
concepts of intersectionality and subjectification. Nora 11(2): 101–110.
Steinmetz, Katy. 2014a. America’s transition. TIME 183(22): 38–46.
Steinmetz, Katy. Laverne Cox talks to TIME about the transgender movement.
TIME, May 29, 2014b. http://time.com/132769/transgender-orange-is-
the-new-black-laverne-cox-interview/
Stone, Deborah. 1988. Political paradox and political reason. Boston: Scott,
Foresman and Company.
Stone, Deborah. 2002. Political paradox: The art of political decision making.
New York: Norton.
Storch, Joseph. Sexual violence: Responding to reports is not enough. Inside
Higher Ed, March 14, 2016. https://www.insidehighered.com/
views/2016/03/14/colleges-must-not-only-respond-reports-sexual-
violence-also-prevent-it-essay
Stotzer, Rebecca L. 2009. Violence against transgender people: A review of United
States data. Aggression and Violent Behavior 14(3): 170–179.
Sturm, Susan. 2001. Second generation employment discrimination: A structural
approach. Columbia Law Review 101(3): 458–568.
Sue, Derald Wing, Christina M. Capodilupo, Gina C. Torino, Jennifer M. Bucceri,
Aisha Holder, Kevin L. Nadal, and Marta Esquilin. 2007. Racial microaggres-
sions in everyday life: Implications for clinical practice. American Psychologist
62(4): 271–286.
Sullivan, Leila Gonzalez. 2002. Informal learning among women community col-
lege presidents. In Women in academic leadership: Professional choices, personal
strategies, ed. Diane R. Dean, Susan J. Bracken, and Jeanie K. Allen, 95–127.
Sterling: Stylus.
Sullivan, Leila Gonzalez. 2009. Informal learning among women community col-
lege presidents. In Women in academic leadership: Professional strategies, per-
sonal choices, ed. Diane R. Dean, Susan J. Bracken, and Jeanie K. Allen, 95–127.
Sterling: Stylus.
Talesh, Rameen A. 2007. The Clery act: Leadership perspectives from senior student
affairs officers. EdD dissertation, University of Southern California. ProQuest
(304828009).
Tannen, Deborah. 1994a. Gender and discourse. New York: Oxford University
Press.
Bibliography 375
Tannen, Deborah. 1994b. Talking from nine to five: How women’s and men’s con-
versational styles affect who gets heard, who gets credit, and what gets done at work.
New York: William Morrow.
Tarule, Jill M. 1996. Voices in dialogue: Collaborative ways of knowing. In
Knowledge, differences, and power: Essays inspired by “women’s ways of knowing”,
ed. Nancy Goldberger, Jill Tarule, Blythe Clinchy, and Mary Belenky, 274–304.
New York: Basic Books.
Taylor, Keeanga-Yamahtta. 2016. From #blacklivesmatter to black liberation.
Chicago: Haymarket Books.
Taylor, Marisa. Transgender right advocates going to battle over bathrooms.
Aljazeera America, August 1, 2015. http://america.aljazeera.com/arti-
cles/2015/8/1/transgender-advocates-bathrooms-are-battlegrounds.html
Tedrow, Barbara, and Robert Rhoads. 1999. A qualitative study of women’s expe-
riences in community college leadership positions. Community College Review
27(3): 1–18. doi:10.1177/009155219902700301.
The Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education. About Carnegie
classification. http://carnegieclassifications.iu.edu/
Thelin, John R. 2011. A history of higher education. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins.
Thomas, Sheila A. 2014. Defining a successful leadership pathway: Women in
academia and the role of institutional support. Unpublished dissertation,
Northcentral University.
Thorton, Saranna. 2012. It’s not over yet: The annual report on the economic status
of the profession, 2010–11. Washington, DC: American Association of University
Professors. www.aaup.org/sites/default/files/files/report_0.pdf.
Thurber, Frances, and Enid Zimmerman. 2002. An evolving feminist leadership
model for art education. Studies in Art Education 44(1): 5–27.
Tierney, William G. (ed.). 1991. Culture and ideology in higher education: Advancing
a critical agenda. New York: Praeger Publishers.
Tierney, William G., and Estela Mara Bensimon. 1996. Promotion and tenure:
Community and socialization in academe. Albany: State University of New York
Press.
Tilcsik, András, Michel Anteby, and Carly R. Knight. 2015. Concealable stigma
and occupational segregation: Toward a theory of gay and lesbian occupations.
Administrative Science Quarterly 60(3): 446–481.
Tolbert, Pamela S., Tal Simons, Alice Andrews, and Jaehoon Rhee. 1995. The
effects of gender composition in academic departments on faculty turnover.
Industrial & Labor Relations Review 48(3): 562–579.
Townsend, Barbara K., and Susan B. Twombly. 2001. Community colleges: Policy
in the future context, vol. 2. Westport: Ablex Publishing.
Townsend, Barbara K., and Susan B. Twombly. 2007. Accidental equity: The sta-
tus of women in the community college. Equity & Excellence in Education
40(3): 208–217.
376 Bibliography
Transgender Law Center. Big news! DOE guidance says transgender students pro-
tected under federal law. April 29, 2014. http://transgenderlawcenter.org/
archives/10249
Trefalt, Spela, Deborah Merrill-Sands, Deborah Kolb, Fiona Wilson, and Suzanne
Carter. 2011. Closing the women’s leadership gap: Who can help? CGO
Insights (32). Retrieved from http://www.simmons.edu/~/media/Simmons/
About/CGO/Documents/INsights/Insights-32.ashx?la=en
Treichler, Paula. 1994. A room of whose own? Lessons from feminist classroom
narratives. In Changing classroom practices, ed. David B. Downing, 75–103.
Urbana: NCTE.
Trower, Cathy A. 2012. Success on the tenure track: Five keys to faculty job satisfac-
tion. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Tunheim, Katherine A., and Aimee N. Goldschmidt. 2013. Exploring the role of
calling in the professional journeys of college presidents. Journal of Leadership,
Accountability and Ethics 10(4):30.
Tunquz, Sharmin. 2015. In the eye of the beholder: Emotional labor in academia
varies with tenure and gender. Studies in Higher Education 41(1): 3–20.
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2013. American Time Use Survey: 2012 results
(USDL-13-1178). Washington DC: U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of
Labor Statistics. http://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/atus_06202013.
pdf
U.S. Census Bureau. A half-century of learning: Historical census statistics on edu-
cational attainment in the United States, 1940 to 2000: Graphs: Maryland.
Retrieved from http://www.census.gov/hhes/socdemo/education/data/
census/half-century/files/MD.pdf
U.S. Department of Labor. 2013. Glass ceiling commission. Washington, DC:
Author.
UNESCO. 2012. World atlas of gender equality in education. Paris: United Nations
Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization.
University of California at Berkeley. Unisex, single-stall, gender inclusive, and other
restrooms on UC Berkeley’s campus. Last modified October 19, 2015. http://
geneq.berkeley.edu/restrooms
Valenti, Jessica. The female ‘confidence gap’ is a Sham. The Guardian Online,
April 23, 2014, 23.
Valian, Virginia. 1999. Why so slow? The advancement of women. Cambridge, MA:
MIT Press.
VanDerLinden, Kim. Career advancement and leadership development of commu-
nity college administrators. Paper presented at the American Educational
Research Association, Chicago, Apr 2003.
VanDerLinden, Kim E. 2004. Gender differences in the preparation and promo-
tion of community college administrators. Community College Review 31(4):
1–24.
Bibliography 377
Vaughan, George B., and Iris M. Weisman. 2003. Leadership development: The
role of the president‐board team. New Directions for Community Colleges
2003(123): 51–61.
Vest, Charles M. 1991. The inaugural address. Retrieved April 13, 2014, from
http://libraries.mit.edu/_archives/exhibits/inaugurations/vest.html
Vincent, E. 2004. A qualitative analysis of community college leadership from the
leading forward summits. Final report prepared for the American Association of
Community Colleges. Washington, DC: ACT. Retrieved from http://www.
ccleadership.org/pdfs/ACT_report.pdf
Wagner, Rachel. 2011. Embracing liberatory practice: Promoting men’s develop-
ment as a feminist act. In Masculinities in higher education: Theoretical and
practical considerations, ed. Jason Laker and Tracy Davis, 210–223. New York:
Routledge.
Walker, Melanie. 1997. Simply not good chaps: Unraveling gender equity in a
South African University. In Feminist critical policy analysis: A perspective from
post-secondary education, ed. Catherine Marshall, 41–59. Washington, DC: The
Falmer Press.
Ward, Kelly, and Lisa Wolf-Wendel. 2004. Academic motherhood: Managing
complex roles in research universities. The Review of Higher Education 27(2):
233–257.
Ward, Kelly, and Lisa Wolf-Wendel. 2008. Choice and discourse in faculty careers:
Feminist perspectives on work and family. In Unfinished agendas: New and con-
tinuing gender challenges in higher education, ed. Judith Glazer-Raymo,
253–271. Baltimore: The John Hopkins University Press.
Ward, Kelly, and Lisa Wolf-Wendel. 2012. Academic motherhood: How faculty
manage work and family. Rutgers: Rutgers University Press.
Weedon, Chris. 1997. Feminist practice and poststructuralist theory, 2nd ed.
Cornwall: Blackwell.
Weimer, Maryellen. 2013. Learner-centered teaching: Five key changes to practice.
San Francisco: Wiley.
Weis, Lois, and Michelle Fine. 2000. Speed bumps: A student-friendly guide to qual-
itative research. New York: Teachers College Press.
Weisman, Iris M., and George B. Vaughan. 2007. The community college presi-
dency: 2006. American Association of Community Colleges (NJ1).
Wenger, Etienne. 2000. Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity.
New York: Cambridge University Press.
West, Candace, and Don H. Zimmerman. 1987. Doing gender. Gender and
Society 1(2): 125–151.
West, Martha S., and John W. Curtis. 2006. AAUP faculty gender equity indicators
2006. Washington, DC: American Association of University Professors.
Westlund, Andrea C. 1999. Pre-modern and modern power: Foucault and the
case of domestic violence. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society
24(4): 1045–1066.
378 Bibliography
Wharton, Amy S., and Mychel Estevez. 2014. Department chairs’ perspectives on
work, family, and gender: Pathways for transformation. Advances in Gender
Research 19: 131–150.
Whitt, Elizabeth. 1991. ‘Hit the ground running:’ Experiences of new faculty in a
school of education. Review of Higher Education 14(2): 177–197.
Whitt, Elizabeth J. 1994. I can be anything? Student leadership in three women’s
colleges. Journal of College Student Development 35(3): 198–207.
Wickens, Christine M. 2008. The organizational impact of university labor unions.
Higher Education 56(5): 545–564. doi:10.1007/s10734-008-9110-z.
Williams, Joan C. 1989. Deconstructing gender. Michigan Law Review 87(4):
797–845.
Williams, Joan C. 2000. Unbending gender: Why family and work conflict and what
to do about it. New York: Oxford University Press.
Williams, Joan C., and Rachel Dempsey. 2014. What works for women at work:
Four patterns working women need to know. New York: New York University
Press.
Williams, Joan C., Tamina Alon, and Stephanie Bornstein. 2006. Beyond the
“chilly climate”: Eliminating bias against women and fathers in academe.
Thought & Action 79–96.
Williams, Patricia. 1987. Spirit-murdering the messenger: The discourse of finger
pointing as the law’s response to racism. University of Miami Law Review 42:
127–1101.
Wilson, Kristin B., and Elizabeth Cox. 2011. A discourse analysis of portrayals of
community college leadership in the “Chronicle”. Community College Journal
of Research and Practice 36(4): 279–290.
Winston, Kenneth I., and Mary Jo Bane. 1993. Gender and public policy: Cases and
comments. Boulder: Westview Press.
Wolf-Wendel, Lisa E., and Kelly Ward. 2006a. Academic life and motherhood:
Variations by institutional type. Higher Education 52(3): 487–521.
Wolf-Wendel, Lisa, and Kelly Ward. 2006b. Faculty work and family life. In The
balancing act: Gendered perspectives in faculty roles and work lives, ed. Susan
J. Bracken, Jeanie K. Allen, and Diane R. Dean, 51–72. Sterling: Stylus.
Wooten, S. Carrie. 2015. Heterosexist discourses: How feminist theory shaped
campus sexual violence policy. In The crisis of campus sexual violence: Critical
perspectives on prevention and response, vol. 1, ed. S. Carrie Wooten and Roland
W. Mitchell, 33–51. New York: Routledge.
World Bank. 2012. World development report 2012: Gender equality and develop-
ment. Washington, DC: Author.
Wroblewski, Angela. Implementation of gender in science and research: The Austrian
case. Paper presented at Working Group 2 meeting, COST Targeted Network
TN1201, Brussels, July 2013.
Bibliography 379
Yin, Robert K. 2009. Case study research: Design and methods, 4th ed. Thousand
Oaks: Sage.
Yoder, Janice D. 1991. Rethinking tokenism: Looking beyond numbers. Gender
& Society 5(2): 178–192.
Young, Robert B. 2003. Values and philosophies guiding the student affairs pro-
fession. In Student services: A handbook for the profession, ed. Susan R. Komives
and Dudley B. Woodard, 89–106. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Yukl, Gary. 2012. Leadership in organizations, 8th ed. Upper Saddle River:
Prentice Hall.
Index
A flipped classrooms, 259, 261, 262,

academic leadership 264
chief academic officer, 29 teaching, 259
college presidents, 43, 69, 71 activism
community colleges, 41, 69, 71 feminist faculty, 163–5
discourse analysis, 43 grassroots leadership, 187n14,
feminist identity, 42 187n17, 187n20, 188n42,
full professor, 14 189n44
grassroots leadership, 187n14, agency
187n17, 187n20, 188n42, feminist identity, 330, 334
189n44 masculine identities, 300
lean in, 9n4, 13, 17, 31 practices of self, 15, 18, 28
mentoring, 29, 71 American Council on Education,
motherhood, 33n37, 35n79, 10n23, 36n99, 38n132, 56n3,
35n80, 58n27 71, 81n6, 85n40, 128, 256n47
second generation discrimination, Austrian universities, 195–202, 204,
26 209
Acker, Joan
disembodied worker, 44, 117, 133
gendered organizations, 126 B
active learning barriers
classrooms, 260 glass ceiling, 14, 15, 32n12, 57n10
engaged learning, 260–6, 269, 273, second generation discrimination,
274 26, 30, 36n109, 38n151
feminist pedagogy, 259–76 service, 27, 73, 75

Higher Education, DOI 10.1057/978-1-137-59285-9
382 INDEX
barriers (cont.) community colleges, 62–4, 66–76

stop the clock policies, 137n56, leadership development, 67, 71, 78
138n79 presidential speeches, 45–8
binary, gender research universities, 44–6, 56
Queer Theory, 318n8 senior leadership, 24, 56, 61
sexual orientation, 155, 255n12 communities of practice
trans*, 239, 241, 243, 246 gendered organizations, 3, 17, 19,
Boomers, 127, 224–31 39n157
Bourdieu, Pierre, 217, 218, 226, 227, ideal worker norms, 16, 21, 25, 28,
231n8, 233n61 118–28
bullying, 25 masculine communities of practice,
17, 20, 27, 30, 328, 329
masculine norms, 6, 76, 183, 306,
C 307
case study design, 66 community colleges, 6, 22, 41, 61–86,
change 132, 149, 189n48, 297n68, 330
academic leadership, 7, 29, 32n27, corporatization/academic capitalism
38n143, 41–3, 55, 69, 71, emotional labor, 20, 23, 28, 29,
231n11 34n64, 35n89, 173, 184, 220
grassroots leadership, 187n14, exploitation, 97, 98, 116, 172–4, 185
187n17, 187n20, 188n42, managerialism, 229, 232n18,
189n44 232n22, 232n25, 232n34
organizational frames, 63, 66, 69 neoliberalism, 118, 121, 133, 226,
senior leadership, 24, 56, 61, 81n1, 335
208 countertransferentially, 303, 314, 315
cisgender critical approaches
men, 155, 301, 316 critical discourse analysis, 93,
students, 282 112n91
women, 8, 155 feminist poststructuralism, 5
class, social, 65, 90, 104, 166, 168, feminist standpoint theory, 4, 80
245 structural perspectives, 6, 88, 90,
classrooms 103, 104, 105n4
active learning, 259–65 critical mass, 330
collaborative learning, 271, 272 cultural approaches, 65
engaged learning, 266–71 curriculum
feminist pedagogy, 271–4 classroom, 143, 178, 246
teaching, 259, 263 teaching, 130, 178
collaborative learning
active learning, 272
engaged learning, 273, 274 D
teaching, 271, 287 discourse analysis
college presidents language, 45, 46
INDEX 383
policy discourse analysis, 6, 88, 89, collaborative learning, 272

92–3, 106n4, 106n8, 106n11, equality
108n27, 109n33, 109n35, discrimination, 62, 163
110n60, 110n63, 111n71, glass ceiling, 14, 43
210, 331 hegemonic norms, 329
discrimination equity
barriers, 26, 27, 36n109, 38n151, double-bind, 43
54 gender regime, 219, 222
glass ceiling, 14, 15 gendered organizations, 7, 26, 29
glass cliff, 25 essentialism
second generation discrimination, gender neutral, 199, 247
26, 36n109, 37n110, 38n151, gendered identities, 328
337n13, 337n19, 338n31 sex roles, 333
disembodied workers ethics, 3, 108n20, 109n42, 110n64,
Acker, Joan, 44, 117, 133 111n74, 111n84, 127, 225,
gendered organizations, 44, 145 253
ideal worker norm, 50, 117, 133 ethnicity, viii, 120, 134n3, 137n58,
doing gender 155, 166, 168, 218, 225, 300,
gendered expectations, 3, 19, 29, 336
121 exploitation
ideal worker norms, 133 barriers, 185
performativity, 311, 328 second generation discrimination,
West, Candace and Don 186
Zimmerman, viii
dominant discourse, 6, 89, 93, 100,
103, 299, 329, 333, 334 F
double-bind faculty
barriers, 57n10 academic leadership, 7, 29
emotional labor, 184 academic profession, 219–22
hegemonic norms, 26 feminist faculty, 163–89, 330,
ideal worker norms, 25 331
women of color, 20 gender equity, 196, 206
grassroots leadership, 187n14,
187n17, 187n20, 188n42,
E 189n44
emotional labor motherhood, 33n37, 35n77,
care, 5, 17 35n79, 35n80, 149
hegemonic norms, 26 pedagogy, 260–2
service, 28 power, 120
engaged learning practices of self, 15, 18, 19, 26–8
active learning, 260–6, 269, 273, race, 3, 51, 65
274 technologies of power, 15, 18, 19
classrooms, 260–2 work life balance, 117, 127
384 INDEX
family leave practices of self, 15, 18, 19

family friendly, 69 technologies of power, 15, 18, 19
fatherhood, 126, 127, 132, 133 full professor, 14, 17, 22, 23, 25, 28,
motherhood, 33n37, 35n77, 120, 131, 204, 221, 226, 228
35n79, 35n80, 149
work-family policies, 137n57
fatherhood G
family leave, 126, 127, 132, 133 gender barriers
motherhood, 33n37, 35n77, exploitation, 73, 74
35n79, 35n80, 149 glass ceiling, 14, 15, 32n12
perfomativity, 329 glass cliff, 25
Sallee, Margaret, 34n63, 126, 127, gender binary
137n71 cisgender men, 155, 301
female college students cisgender students, 282
classrooms, 315 cisgender women, 8, 155
confidence, 286, 288, 289 essentialism, 21
leadership, 278 gender constructions
leadership identity, 278–9 cisgender men, 155, 301
student engagement, 260 cisgender students, 282
feminist approaches cisgender women, 8, 155
discourse analysis, 45, 46 feminist identity, 171, 173, 175,
feminist faculty, 163–89 177–9, 330, 334
feminist pedagogy, 259–76 gender binary, 3, 5
feminist standpoint theory, 4, 8, LGBTQ, 5
10n17, 65 masculine identity, 300
poststructural feminism, 211n13, queer authorship, 312–14
212n27 gender dynamics
feminist faculty, 163–89, 330, 331 feminist faculty, 262
feminist identity, 171, 173, 175, gendered organizations, 279
177–9, 330, 334 intersectionality, 273
feminist pedagogy, 171, 259–76 positionality, 8
feminist standpoint theory gender identities
poststructural feminism, 211n13, feminist identity, 171, 173, 175,
212n27 177–9, 330, 334
qualitative research, 85n35, 170, gendered expectations, 3, 19, 29,
188n29, 295n43 121
flipped classrooms intersectionality, 273
active learning, 259–65 masculine identity, 300
classrooms, 259, 261, 262, 264 gender neutral
collaborative learning, 271 hegemonic norms, 17
teaching, 259, 263 performativity, 8, 314
Foucault, Michel gender regime
INDEX 385
gendered organizations, 223 ideal worker norms, 17, 26

ideal worker norms, 218 masculinity, 8
performativity, 300 heteronormativity
gendered expectations hegemonic norms, 313
disembodied worker, 19 ideal worker norms, 124
ideal worker norms, 19, 29, 121 identity, 310, 311
identity, 4 queer theory, 309–11
performativity, 8 hierarchy
gendered organizations academic leadership, 42
Acker, Joan, 126 college president, 14,
disembodied worker, 44, 145 gendered organizations, 14, 44, 145
hegemonic norms, 17, 26, 327 leadership, 14, 44
ideal worker norms, 17, 333 human resources approaches, 62, 64,
performativity, 311 66, 67, 69, 71, 72, 80, 280
Generation X, 127, 138n76
generational differences
academic women, 215 I
boomers, 224–6 ideal worker norms
generation X, 127 disembodied worker, 50, 117, 133
millennials, 127 gendered organizations, 17, 19, 26
generativity, 283, 286, 288 hegemonic norms, 17, 26
glass ceiling masculine norms, 6, 76, 183, 306,
barriers, 14, 15, 32n12 307
college president, 14, 43 Williams, Joan C., 16, 21, 133
community colleges, 22 work and family, 25, 28
leadership development, 14, 15 identity
senior leadership, 24, 56 cisgender men, 155, 301, 316
glass cliff, 25, 36n100, 43 cisgender women, 8, 155
grassroots leadership feminist identity, 171, 173, 175,
activism, 187n14, 187n17, 187n20, 177–9, 330, 334
188n42, 189n44 intersectionality, 317n5, 318n15
feminist approaches, 65, 332 LGBTQ, 12, 124, 133
grounded theory, 278–81, 291, masculine identities, 300
293n9, 293n16, 295n41–5, implementation, 7, 137n57, 194–202,
296n49–53, 300, 317n4, 205, 207–9, 212n24
320n49–51, 320n54–8 imposter identity
hegemonic norms, 8, 17, 26, 314,
327, 329, 333–6
H performativity, 220, 268, 269
hegemonic norms inclusion, 3, 5, 8, 50, 52, 55, 62, 76,
disembodied worker, 50 80, 130, 132, 135n34, 237–57,
gendered organizations, 17, 26, 327 272, 318n18, 330
386 INDEX
intersectionality political approaches, 65

gender identities, 42, 193, 242–5, structural perspectives, 192
260, 261, 273, 289, 307 lean in
race, 4, 5, 155 agency, 15, 28, 30, 31
trans*, 273 communities of practice, 17, 27, 30
gender, 16, 28, 30
leaders, 62, 64
L practices of self, 15, 18, 27, 28
language Sandberg, Sheryl, 13, 260, 296n54
discourse analysis, 6, 88 Structuration, 18, 30
leadership, 6, 42 technologies of power, 15, 18, 27,
policy discourse analysis, 92–3 28
leadership LGBTQ
academic leadership, 7, 29, 32n27, gender binary, 133, 241
38n143, 41–3, 55, 69, 71, queer theory, 24, 124
231n11 trans*, 330
college presidents, 43 liberatory practice, 254, 301, 304,
human resources approaches, 69, 309, 316, 317, 318n9, 319n28,
280 319n29, 319n41, 322n97,
lean in, 15, 16, 30 322n98
political approaches, 65 liminality, 300, 309, 311, 312
structural perspectives, 6, 105
leadership development
communities of practice, 334 M
glass ceiling, 88 managerialism
lean in, 28 corporatization/academic
trustees, 67, 70, 71 capitalism, 232n21
leadership identity neoliberalism, 226
communities of practice, 3, 17, 27 masculine identities
feminist identity, 171, 173, 175, cisgender men, 301, 316
177–9, 330, 334 hegemonic norms, 8, 17, 314, 328
identity, 8, 26, 277–83, 288, 291, intersectionality, 300
292, 293n9, 293n16, 294n19, mask of masculinity, 299
294n20, 295n41, 295n42, performativity, 8, 299–322
295n45, 296n49, 596n53 masculine norms
intersectionality, 291 communities of practice, 6, 76
LGBTQ, 120 disembodied worker, 18, 50
masculine identities, 300 gendered organizations, 6
leadership strategies hegemonic norms, 8, 17, 314, 328
discourse analysis, 89, 92, 331 masculine communities of practice,
human resources approaches, 64 17, 19, 20, 27, 30, 328, 329
mentoring, 64, 178 mentoring
INDEX 387
double-bind, 164, 184 political approaches, 65

glass ceiling, 43 structural perspectives, 6, 88, 103
leadership development, 26, 64, 65
microaggression
gender dynamics, 290 P
heteronormativity, 310 pedagogy
race, 300 classrooms, 178, 259, 260, 262,
Millennials, 127 270, 273, 333
motherhood feminist pedagogy, 171, 259–76
fatherhood, 33n37, 35n77, 35n79, teaching, 263
35n80, 149 performativity
stop the clock policies, 137n56, double bind, 24
138n79 gendered expectations, 3, 120
work and family, 33n37, 35n77, hegemonic norms, 8, 314, 326
35n79, 35n80, 35n82 ideal worker norms, 16, 28, 331
policy discourse analysis
discourse analysis, 6, 88, 89, 92–3,
N 106n4, 106n8, 106n11,
narrative research 108n27, 109n33, 109n35,
case study design, 66 110n60, 110n63, 111n71,
discourse analysis, 166 210, 329
language, 172 feminist approaches, 65, 330
qualitative research, 85n35, 170, policy, institutional, 96, 97, 129, 225,
188n29, 295n43 227, 245, 252, 305
National Center for Educational political approaches, 65
Statistics, 31n2, 115, 134n3, positionality
134n4, 157n8 intersectionality, 2, 5
neoliberalism performativity, 8
corporatization/academic poststructural feminism
capitalism, 133, 226 feminist approaches, 65, 330
managerialism, 229 structuration, 211n13, 212n27
normalization power
disembodied worker, 18, 44, 50, double bind, 55, 164, 184
117, 133 gendered hierarchy, 139, 142
gendered organizations, 95 leadership, 233n42
ideal worker norms, 16, 21, 25, 28, power differentials
118, 133 gendered organizations, 17, 19,
29
hegemonic norms, 26, 331
O ideal worker norms, 25, 28, 331
organizational frames practices of self
human resources approaches, 69, agency, 15, 18, 28
280 Foucault, Michel, 15, 18
388 INDEX
presidential leadership 160n57, 160n61, 166, 175, 183,

community colleges, 56n8, 59n64 218, 223, 225, 232n23, 233n60,
gender, 42, 43 245, 260, 261, 286, 288, 311,
research universities, 42 333, 334
women, 42, 43 research methodologies
presidential speeches case study design, 66
discourse analysis, 45, 46, 53 discourse analysis, 92, 106n11,
inaugural speeches, 45, 53 108n27
privilege focus groups, 70
barriers, 251, 253 grounded theory, 278–81
power, 174 narrative, 166
problematize qualitative research, 85n35, 170,
critical approaches, 3, 117, 299 188n29, 295n43
feminist approaches, 102, 117, 335 research universities
poststructural feminism, 211n13, college presidents, 43, 61
212n27 inaugural addresses, 44–6, 56,
public good 59n57
corporatization/academic resistance
capitalism, 118, 121 agency, 97, 101
managerialism, 229 barriers, 193, 312
neoliberalism, 118, 121, 133, 226, critical mass, 328
335 grassroots leadership, 187n14,
187n17, 187n20, 188n42,
189n44
Q lean in, 260
qualitative research mentoring, 71, 118
case study design, 66 rhetoric
narrative, 175, 188n28 discourse analysis, 45
queer authorship, 312–14 presidential speeches, 45, 47
queer theory
intersectionality, 300, 301, 309
LGBTQ, 328 S
Sandberg, Sheryl
agency, 15, 17
R lean in, 17, 32n14, 32n22
race, 3–5, 10n29, 32n17, 32n19, structuration, 18, 30
33n42, 37n121, 46–8, 51, 53, science, technology, engineering and
65, 68, 80, 81n2, 81n11, 82n12, mathematics (STEM), 2, 7, 13,
82n14, 82n15, 82n17, 86n51, 14, 20–2, 34n66, 34n69, 285
86n53, 88, 90, 95, 104, 111n85, second generation discrimination
120, 134n3, 136n50, 137n58, barriers, 26, 30, 36n109, 38n151
137n63, 155, 158n24, 158n34, discrimination, 26
INDEX 389
hegemonic norms, 26 organizational frames, 66, 69

ideal worker norms, 26 policy, institutional, 129, 226
self-efficacy student affairs, 106n5, 141, 157n4,
agency, 288 157n6, 157n10, 157n11,
imposter identity, 289 157n12, 157n22, 158n29,
senior leadership 159n38, 160n61–3, 160n66,
college president, 56, 61, 81n1 160n67, 160n72, 161n75,
full professor, 25 161n80, 161n81, 161n87,
trustees, 68 162n88, 162n91–3, 239, 248,
service 250–3, 256n49, 257n54, 309,
associate professors, 22, 23, 28, 131 312, 322n94, 335
double bind, 24, 164, 184 student engagement
emotional labor, 23, 28, 173 classrooms, 260, 261, 263, 264
sex female college students, 277
essentialism, 21, 48, 104, 210 student leadership, 8, 277, 294n18,
gender identities, 42, 242, 289, 307 294n21, 294n23, 294n26
gendered expectations, 120 student learning and development
sexual orientation classrooms, 141, 143
identity, 4, 240, 255n12 staff, 141–3
LGBTQ, 5, 124 subject positions, 18, 46, 54, 91–4,
shared governance, 63, 75, 86n49, 102
118–21, 128, 130, 133, 295n38
social justice policies, 89, 104, 164,
171, 179, 185, 195, 226, 243, T
250–3, 257n53, 272, 280, teaching
297n72, 302, 304, 309, 318n27, active learning, 259, 263, 265
321n68 classrooms, 111n79, 178, 211n6,
staff 259
gendered organizations, 7, 14 feminist pedagogy, 259, 262, 265
hierarchy, 14, 140, 142, 144 pedagogy, 259, 265
sticky floors, 14, 32n11, 34n58 technologies of power
student learning and development, Foucault, Michel, 15, 18
141–4, 150 gendered organizations, 19
stop the clock policies structuration, 18, 30
fatherhood, 126 tenure
motherhood, 137n56, 138n79 clock, 124, 129, 138n79, 218, 225
policy, institutional, 129, 225, 227 faculty, 131
structural perspectives stuck in the middle, 22
hierarchy, 91 tipping point
leadership strategies, 6, 105n3 critical mass, 328
structuration lean in, 29
hierarchy, 19 Title IX, 64, 88, 98, 104, 246
390 INDEX
trans* violence, sexual, 88, 89, 93–102, 104,

intersectionality, 273, 291 105, 106n6, 110n60, 110n64,
masculinity, 243, 292 110n68, 111n71, 111n76,
performativity, 300 111n83, 111n84, 112n89, 169,
transfeminine, 242, 243 180, 321n66
transgender, 111n77, 125, 132, 133,
135n34, 166, 237–44, 247,
254n3, 254n5–7, 255n9, W
255n11, 255n13–18, 255n20, West, Candace and Don Zimmerman
255n23, 256n34, 256n37, gendered expectations, 3, 19, 29,
256n40, 256n44, 256n46, 282, 120
307, 318n18, 336n28 ideal worker norms, 280
transmasculine, 243, 248 performativity, 10n15, 285
trustees Williams, Joan, C.
leadership development, 67, 70, 78 disembodied worker, 117, 133
shared governance, 75 ideal worker norms, 16, 21, 133
work/life balance
faculty, 119, 127
V fatherhood, 127
Valian, Virginia, 144 motherhood, 149
values, 7, 25, 53, 65, 77, 89, 90, 127,
149, 191, 210, 215, 217, 226,
243, 248, 254, 256n49, 312

Critical Approaches To Women and Gender in Higher Education (PDFDrive)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Critical Approaches To Women and Gender in Higher Education (PDFDrive)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Critical

ISBN 978-1-137-59284-2 ISBN 978-1-137-59285-9 (eBook)

Library of Congress Control Number: 2016963260

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s) 2017

Cover illustration: © AF Fotografie / Alamy Stock Photo

Printed on acid-free paper

This Palgrave Macmillan imprint is published by Springer Nature

To my late mother, Irene Ward, for imparting to me the importance of a

To my parents, Javade and Rubina Khwaja, who supported me every step

Edited books by their very nature are a collaborative enterprise. We have

attention to these points of intersection and to consider what this perspec-

Part I Leaders and Organizations 11

2 Problematizing Gender in Higher Education:

3 Finding their Own Voice: Women’s Leadership Rhetoric 41

4 Conditions Enabling Women’s Leadership

5 Higher Education Policy: Disrupting the Structures

Part II Faculty and Staff 113

6 Troubling Gender Norms and the Ideal

7 Part of the Discussion? Gendered Role of Support

8 Feminist Faculty: Striving to Be Heard 163

9 Gender Equity in Austrian University Contexts:

10 Generational Dispositions of Women Faculty:

Part III Students 235

11 Trans* College Students: Moving Beyond Inclusion 237

12 The Female “Confidence Gap” and Feminist Pedagogy:

13 Changing Views of Self-as-Leader: What Female

14 Honoring the “Face Behind the Mask”: Interrogating

Part IV Looking Forward 323

15 Critical Approaches to Women and Gender in Higher

Elizabeth J. Allan is Professor of Higher Education at the University of Maine

Jaime Lester is an Associate Professor of Higher Education, George Mason

Fig. 7.1 Tenets of work empowerment (Adapted from Sarmiento, Spence

Table 4.1 Women Presidents 1998–2012 63

Pamela L. Eddy, Tehmina Khwaja, and Kelly Ward

P.L. Eddy (*)

© The Author(s) 2017 1

nuanced views regarding gender and the gender spectrum. As a starting

or feminine.”7 Yet, the binary of masculine and feminine becomes too

The research contained in this volume offers critical approaches that go

• How do changing constructions of gender challenge current binary

Attention is paid to the role of power and norms in reifying acceptable

Critical Issues of Gender and Organizational

Women’s participation in top leadership positions varies by institutional

Critical Gender Issues in Faculty and Staff Roles

representation.24 Women faculty and staff continue to face structural issues

Critical Issues of Gender for Students

Women represent the majority of students both at the undergraduate

cause of concern.27 The section on students explores questions such as:

understanding and reforming them. Using a lens of intersectionality con-

14. Kelan, Performing Gender at Work.

Leaders and Organizations

Problematizing Gender in Higher

Sheryl Sandberg, COO at Facebook, suggested in Lean In that women

P.L. Eddy (*)

© The Author(s) 2017 13

The type of degree programs female students complete influences the

Contemplating the role of agency for women requires attention to how

Communities of practice are also an important component to situate

A chilly climate for women in STEM Data about the representation of

as competitive, exclusive, and sexist, leaving women to feel unwelcome

Stuck in the middle as associate professors and midlevel managers Related

Another aspect of being stuck in the middle is related to administra-

Discussion and Implications for Practice

Part I Leaders and Organizations 11

2 Problematizing Gender in Higher Education:

3 Finding their Own Voice: Women’s Leadership Rhetoric 41

4 Conditions Enabling Women’s Leadership

5 Higher Education Policy: Disrupting the Structures

Part II Faculty and Staff 113

6 Troubling Gender Norms and the Ideal

7 Part of the Discussion? Gendered Role of Support

8 Feminist Faculty: Striving to Be Heard 163

9 Gender Equity in Austrian University Contexts:

10 Generational Dispositions of Women Faculty:

Part III Students 235

11 Trans* College Students: Moving Beyond Inclusion 237

12 The Female “Confidence Gap” and Feminist Pedagogy:

13 Changing Views of Self-as-Leader: What Female

14 Honoring the “Face Behind the Mask”: Interrogating

Part IV Looking Forward 323

15 Critical Approaches to Women and Gender in Higher

Table 4.1 Women Presidents 1998–2012 63