Received: 29 April 2020

DOI: 10.1111/gwao.12549

ORIGINAL ARTICLE
- -
Revised: 29 July 2020 Accepted: 13 September 2020

Everyday sexism and racism in the ivory tower:

The experiences of early career researchers on
the intersection of gender and ethnicity in the
academic workplace

Dounia Bourabain

Department of Sociology, Vrije Universiteit

Brussel, Elsene, Belgium
Correspondence
Bourabain Dounia, Pleinlaan 5, Office 2.22,
1050 Elsene, Belgium.
Email: Dounia.bourabain@vub.be
Funding information
Vrije Universiteit Brussel
[Correction added on 18 November 2020,
after online publication: On page 5, lines
4–10 in this updated version the sentence
“For example, the Flemish‐ and French‐
speaking … from the Global South.” has been
removed at the request of the author.]
Abstract
The academic workplace is often described as a place of
merit and equal opportunities. However, research shows a
leaky pipeline where the share of women and people of
color decreases in the higher echelons of academia.
Explanations are often structural, referring to the access
barriers women are confronted with, such as hiring and
recruitment. This research investigates what goes wrong in
the early phases of a female academic's career. From an
intersectional perspective, I study the experiences with
everyday sexism and racism of PhD and postdoctoral re-
searchers across disciplines. After conducting 50 in‐depth
interviews, four processes are discovered: smokescreen of
equality, everyday cloning, patronization, and paternalism.

KEYWORDS
early career researchers, everyday racism, everyday sexism, higher
education institutions, inequality, intersectionality

1 | INTRODUCTION

Higher education has gone through some major transformations in the past decade. The needs of the post‐
industrial labor market and the '68 student movements led to a change in both size and composition of the
academic landscape. While universities were originally built to prepare the male elite for key positions in society,
the massification of higher education brought changes in gender, ethnic, and class composition. Especially regarding

-
gender, the imbalance has reversed in most European and Anglo‐Saxon countries. With a total of 53% in the EU‐28
and 59% in the United States, women are in the majority as students in tertiary education (European Commission,

248 Gender Work Organ. 2021;28:248–267. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/gwao © 2020 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
BOURABAIN
- 249

2019). Additionally, while collecting data based on race and ethnicity is prohibited in most European Union (EU)
countries, in 2016, 31.5% of US graduates were students with an ethnic/racial minority background (ACE, 2016).
Although the student population is diversifying, higher education has failed to diversify its faculty.
Prominent research streams on inequality in academia are constituted along the lines of gender and race. The
first stream looks at how female academics' careers are impeded due to structural barriers, investigating the “leaky
pipeline” and “glass ceiling” (see, e.g., Alfred, 2011; Glazer‐Raymo, 1999; Morley, 1994). The leaky pipeline liter-
ature discusses the decreasing presence of women in higher academic levels. This leak is noticeable due to the
reverse reality in lower positions where women are overrepresented as early career researchers. Structural
impediments causing this leak are, amongst others, hiring and recruitment (van den Brink & Benschop, 2014). If
women do survive the barriers of recruitment, they frequently end up in unstable employment positions which in
turn decreases the opportunity of an academic career.
From a micro‐perspective, this stream additionally focuses on the “chilly climate,” which refers to a range of
inequitable treatments that generate low levels of work satisfaction and feelings of unhappiness within their work
environment (Nielsen, 2017). Women are not only dissatisfied with their short‐term positions, they also lack
common support, feel isolated, and have difficulties balancing family and work (Benschop & Brouns, 2003; Hult,
Callister, & Sullivan, 2005). This stream originally neglected the influence of race, predominantly studying the po-
sition of white women. As a response, a research field opened up to study the presence or absence of Afro‐American
female faculty in the United States and Black Ethnic Minority (BME) faculty in the UK (Knights & Richards, 2003;
Mirza, 2006). This stream investigates “multiple jeopardy” (King, 1988) studying the multiplicative effects of
discrimination and oppression due to their identity's intersection on the grounds of gender and race. Both streams
take a one‐dimensional approach when studying women's position in the academy, looking at either race or gender.
This research investigates the experiences of both women from the ethnic majority (EMAW) and minority
group (EMIW) working at five Belgian public universities. I study the experiences of women with sexism and
gendered racism in the academic workplace. This article attempts to add several innovations to the field of female
faculty working in higher education institutions (HEI).
First, this research is innovative due to its intersectional perspective in European HEI. Research on HEI
included an intersectional perspective when ethnicity or race was defined in terms of international women (Sang &
Calvard, 2019; Strauβ & Boncori, 2020). This article investigates the experiences of women part of the majority and
minority groups in Belgium. EMAW are women who have both parents and grandparents born in the Global North,
while EMIW are women with Global South ancestry, paying attention to multiple marginalized and intersecting
identities in academia. Taking both groups into account allows parallels to be drawn between sexism and racism.
Through a deeper understanding of sexism experienced by both groups I identify the racialization processes on
sexism that create unique forms of inequality for EMIW.
Second, this research takes Belgium as the context of study as it belongs to one of the Global North countries
with the lowest share of female early career researchers. As a result, the share of full professors is dramatically
lower compared to other Global North countries. In 2018, 18.3% of the professors were female, which is lower than
the average of 23.7% in the EU‐28 (European Commission, 2019). Although no data exists on the presence of ethnic
minorities as faculty in Belgian HEI, I can say that, comparable to other Global North countries, they are only
marginally present. In addition, taking Belgium as the context of study allows to move beyond the black–white
divide and ethnicity as an added layer entails a combination of not only skin color, but cultural and religious
ancestry as well.
Third, research on the position and experiences of women in the academic workplace often takes tenured and
full professors as subjects of interest. I decided to study PhD researchers and postdocs for two main reasons. The
first reason is that if we want to understand the leaky pipeline where the presence of women decreases when
moving up the academic ladder, we need to study the experiences they face as early career researchers. Second, the
unstable employment contracts of early career researchers and, consequently, strong dependence on superiors can
250
- BOURABAIN

intensify their subordinate position and increase the chances of practices of inequality, exploitation, and
harassment.
Third, besides the intersection of multiple marginalized identities, this research also sheds light on “spatial”
intersectionality. By taking Essed's (1991) perspective on everyday racism, I consider the interactions between the
structural and the interactional, paying attention to the interlink between macro power structures and micro
individual practices.

1.1 | Theoretical framework

1.1.1 | Racism, sexism, and its intersections: Gendered racism

In this article, I utilize Essed's conceptualization of everyday racism and based on that everyday sexism to un-
derstand the day‐to‐day confrontations with colleagues and supervisors. It is very much relevant to study these
everyday experiences as research has shown how it affects the work satisfaction and general mental and physical
wellbeing (Danna & Griffin, 1999).
The perceived post‐racial society has brought with it the idea that racism and discrimination are immoral and
should be punished. However, this did not lead to a decline in racism, instead, racism transformed into subtle
invisible forms. These subtle forms have been described as color‐blind racism (Bonilla‐Silva, 2017), modern racism
(McConohay, 1986), micro‐aggressions (Sue, 2007), and everyday racism. Everyday racism is about major and small
practices that are too ambiguous to decide on whether or not they are racist (Essed, 1991). I use the theory of
everyday racism because it moves away from a social–psychological perspective emphasizing micro explanations
for racism. More specifically, Essed tried to overcome the structure–agency gap in the social sciences by criticizing
the categorization of racism in individual, institutional, and structural forms of racism. Instead, everyday racism is “a
process that relates micro and macro structures of racism” (Essed, 1991, p. 51). Individual relations are race relations as
they (re)produce the underlying power structures. Race is a key organizing principle of the social system. The
relevance of race as well as the form and intensity racism takes on depends on the socio‐political context.
Therefore, it is primordial to study the context of racism.
In Europe, race does not only include the black–white color divide, but also concerns nationality, culture,
ethnicity, and religion. We could best consider race in terms of Eurocentrism. Eurocentrism is a paradigm in
which Europe is perceived as the birthplace of modernity. This paradigm could only be shaped if it was con-
trasted against the so‐perceived underdeveloped Global South, that is, the “East” (Said, 1978) and Africa
(Ndlovu‐Gatsheni, 2013). From a critical point of view, modernity in the “West” was only possible through the
enslavement, oppression, and inferiorization of cultures from the Global South. The construction of “the West,”
the so‐called cradle of democracy, capitalism, and law, legitimized “Western” imperialism over the rest of the
world. In Belgium, we find these salient racial boundaries amongst two groups. First, while colonialism is
considered a terrible passage of Belgium's history, it continues to other people dislocated from the colonized
territories of Congo, Rwanda, and Burundi. They are met with major barriers in education, labor, and housing
(Demart, Schoumaker, Godin, & Adam, 2017). Second, the 1960s and 1970s were marked by labor migration
pulling migrants from poor regions of Southern Europe, Northern Africa, and West Asia. While labor migrants
from Southern Europe have crossed these racial boundaries and are defined as white, labor migrants from
Northern Africa and West Asia remain othered through perceived cultural and religious differences and continue
to face structural and systemic inequalities in all domains of life.
Analogous to race, gender as well is a key organizing principle defining social order. Just as racism, sexism has
today transformed into more subtle ambiguous forms. Arriving in a so‐perceived post‐feminist society, beliefs that
gender equality is finally reached are sustained. However, this very emphasis on the post‐feminist beliefs reinforced
the dynamics of hegemonic masculinity. Walby (1990), amongst others, explained that we shifted from a private to
BOURABAIN
- 251

a public patriarchy. Although the concept of patriarchy has been criticized for being static (Pollert, 1996), Walby
showed how hegemonic masculinity became invisible through its shift to the public space. Men were historically
considered to be rational thinkers having the right to move in public space (Walby, 1990). Women considered as
caretakers were primarily defined by their body instead of their mind. The transformation from private to public
patriarchy gave women access to the public domain, but the traditional gender‐duality is still at play. This duality of
public versus private is a duality of men versus women of truth versus nature, which still prevails, in the back-
ground, in today's society.
Following an intersectional perspective, racism and sexism as structures of oppression are interdependent
and a multidimensional approach is necessary to capture the impact on female academics' lived experiences.
Intersectionality reveals the complexity of one's identity and how this leads to unique and non‐generalizable
experiences. More specifically, the combination of sexism and racism is caused by intersecting crossroads of
different social categories of one's identity. Crenshaw (1991) brought to the attention that “dominant social
patterns and systematic inequalities affect the lived experiences of groups and individuals who embody multiple
targeted identities and that such patterns and inequalities often produce intersectional disempowerment” (p. 1245).
The work of scholars such as Cockburn (1998), Collins (1986), Davis (2008), and Anthias and Yuval‐Davis
(1983) has been impactful in studying the inextricable link between ethnicity and gender from an intersectional
perspective. In Europe, Essed (1991) defined the intersection of power structures on ethnicity and gender as
gendered racism. Similar concepts such as racialized sexism also arose to capture the joined dynamics of
oppression.

1.1.2 | Academia: A gendered and racialized institution

While academia is profiled as the institution of knowledge, rationality, and truth reached through merit, critical
scholars identified it as an inequality regime. Acker (2009) defined inequality regimes as an institution with “loosely
interrelated practices, processes, actions, and meanings that result in and maintain class, gender, and racial inequalities
within particular organizations” (p. 201). Academia is not neutral as is often wrongly perceived but is constructed
around the male, white norm in Europe. This norm serves as the foundation for the organizations' substructure that
refers to the organizing processes determining the characteristics of a job, its content, and related implicit and
explicit rules expected to be internalized (Acker, 1990).
Unique to academia as an organization is the crucial role it played in upholding racism and sexism in society.
From the 19th century, pseudo‐science contributed to the construction of modernity (Harwood & Banton, 1975;
Heleta, 2016; Molefe, 2016). It offered European nation‐states legitimization for colonialism and slavery by cat-
egorizing people into a racial hierarchy in which the superior races were the developed, rational, intelligent race.
Concerning sexism, universities' historical aim of training clerics and political leaders maintained the gender divide
of the public and private space. Furthermore, the male white body was and is still considered the “knowledge
holder” (Puwar, 2004), the ideal academic who is a rational worker immersing himself into his work only. Conse-
quently, women and ethnic minorities experience a role incongruity between their gender identity and professional
identity resulting in a biased assessment of their abilities and contribution to knowledge production. Previous
research on academia showed the disruption of competence‐based relationships with peers and superiors (Bernal &
Villalpando, 2002; Mountz, 2016; van den Brink & Benschop, 2014). Colleagues will often misperceive women in
stereotypically defined masculine occupations, like academia. Their identity as an academic is mistaken due to
perceived status and role discrepancies. This implies the sustainment of barriers for career progression and pro-
motion of women to higher positions (Kanter, 1975). Especially with the introduction of neoliberalism in academia
(see Thwaites & Pressland, 2017), the ideal academic is expected to work longer hours without pay, which conflicts
parents (and predominantly women) to find a balance between work and family (Maxwell, Connolly, & Ní Laoire,
252
- BOURABAIN

2019; Raddon, 2002; Ward & Wolf‐Wendel, 2004). This turns into a vicious cycle as they continuously remain
subject to bias.

2 | METHOD

This article focuses on PhD and postdoctoral researchers employed at five Belgian universities. Belgium exists
out of three language communities, the Flemish, French, and German community, that each arrange their edu-
cation system separately. I only focus on Flemish‐speaking universities, which is the largest language group in
Belgium, to control for context. This research relied on 50 face‐to‐face in‐depth semi‐structured interviews
conducted by a young female with an ethnic minority background. It offers the appropriate approach as everyday
racism is subtle and can be understood and revealed if discussed by those who experience it.

2.1 | Research participants

The analysis is based on the personal experiences of 50 female academics presented in Table 1. I interviewed
female PhD candidates and several postdoctoral researchers for several reasons. Most research has focused on the
experiences of majority and minority women in higher positions, such as those already in their tenure (track).
Compared to female tenures and professors, early career researchers have quite different experiences as they have
not (yet) faced the same structural barriers and are still paving their academic path. In addition, this sample does
not enjoy a stable position. Instead, they work on 1‐year or other limited contracts that are renewed annually after
positive recommendation of their supervisor and supervisory committee. Their position creates different dynamics
and worries about their fit in academia. I discuss both the experiences of EMAW and EMIW to avoid the
normalization of one group and differentiation of the other. EMAW are defined as women whose parents and
grandparents are all born in the Global North. EMIW are first‐, second‐, and third‐generation ethnic minorities from
the Global South, particularly Africa, Eastern Europe, West and South Asia. The second generation includes women
of which one or both parents have migrated from these areas. The third generation has second‐generation parents,
meaning that one or both grandparents were born in the Global South. Although their ancestry stands central, it is
relevant to mention that society defines these women as non‐white. This is not only related to skin color, but to
salient cultural and religious boundaries. As both groups answered to very similar questions, I distance the
normative background against which EMIW are often compared to.
I located 50 interviewees through diverse channels. The first respondents were contacted through an
Internet search of the different departments at the selected universities. Respondents were picked based on
name and if a picture was available on appearance. During the interviews, women were asked about their ethnic
background to match the perceived with their actual background. After the first interviews I worked with a
snowball‐sampling method which helped to obtain names of potentially interested respondents. To avoid sam-
pling bias, women were randomly contacted with the question to participate in an interview about their ex-
periences as an academic. Each participant was first provided an informed consent explaining the content of the
research, the researchers involved, confidentiality and data protection, and a debriefing entailing contact details
of the researcher and of a center for psychological support. After the interview, the researcher once again
mentioned her contact details and offered a guarantee that the respondents can contact her for follow‐up,
questions, thoughts, and concerns. In addition, the respondents had the right to ask for their transcript or to
change or erase anything they had discussed during the interview. Before submitting the manuscript to the
journal, the article was first sent out to the respondents to allow them to change/erase quotes used in this
article. Ethical approval has been granted by the ethical committee of the humanities and social sciences of the
university in which the author is employed.
BOURABAIN
- 253

TABLE 1 Characteristics of research participants

Respondents Position Discipline Ethnicity

Respondent 1 PhD researcher Social sciences & humanities Ethnic minority

Respondent 2 PhD researcher Social sciences & humanities Ethnic majority

Respondent 3 PhD researcher Social sciences & humanities Ethnic majority

Respondent 4 PhD researcher Social sciences & humanities Ethnic majority

Respondent 5 PhD researcher Social sciences & humanities Ethnic minority

Respondent 6 PhD researcher Social sciences & humanities Ethnic minority

Respondent 7 Postdoc researcher Social sciences & humanities Ethnic majority

Respondent 8 PhD researcher Life & exact sciences Ethnic majority

Respondent 9 Postdoc researcher Social sciences & humanities Ethnic majority

Respondent 10 Postdoc researcher Life & exact sciences Ethnic majority

Respondent 11 PhD researcher Social sciences & humanities Ethnic minority

Respondent 12 Postdoc researcher Social sciences & humanities Ethnic majority

Respondent 13 PhD researcher Social sciences & humanities Ethnic minority

Respondent 14 Postdoc researcher Social sciences & humanities Ethnic minority

Respondent 15 Postdoc researcher Social sciences & humanities Ethnic minority

Respondent 16 Postdoc researcher Life & exact sciences Ethnic majority

Respondent 17 PhD researcher Life & exact sciences Ethnic majority

Respondent 18 PhD researcher Social sciences & humanities Ethnic majority

Respondent 19 Postdoc researcher Life & exact sciences Ethnic majority

Respondent 20 Postdoc researcher Social sciences & humanities Ethnic majority

Respondent 21 Postdoc researcher Life & exact sciences Ethnic majority

Respondent 22 Postdoc researcher Social sciences & humanities Ethnic majority

Respondent 23 Postdoc researcher Social sciences & humanities Ethnic majority

Respondent 24 PhD researcher Social sciences & humanities Ethnic minority

Respondent 25 Postdoc researcher Social sciences & humanities Ethnic minority

Respondent 26 PhD researcher Life & exact sciences Ethnic minority

Respondent 27 PhD researcher Social sciences & humanities Ethnic minority

Respondent 28 PhD researcher Social sciences & humanities Ethnic minority

Respondent 29 Postdoc researcher Social sciences & humanities Ethnic minority

Respondent 30 Postdoc researcher Life & exact sciences Ethnic minority

Respondent 31 PhD researcher Social sciences & humanities Ethnic minority

Respondent 32 PhD researcher Social sciences & humanities Ethnic minority

Respondent 33 Postdoc researcher Life & exact sciences Ethnic minority

Respondent 34 PhD researcher Social sciences & humanities Ethnic majority

Respondent 35 PhD researcher Social sciences & humanities Ethnic minority

Respondent 36 Postdoc researcher Social sciences & humanities Ethnic minority

(Continues)
254
- BOURABAIN

TABLE 1 (Continued)

Respondents Position Discipline Ethnicity

Respondent 37 PhD researcher Life & exact sciences Ethnic majority

Respondent 38 PhD researcher Social sciences & humanities Ethnic minority

Respondent 39 Postdoc researcher Life & exact sciences Ethnic majority

Respondent 40 PhD researcher Social sciences & humanities Ethnic minority

Respondent 41 PhD researcher Life & exact sciences Ethnic minority

Respondent 42 Postdoc researcher Life & exact sciences Ethnic majority

Respondent 43 PhD researcher Life & exact sciences Ethnic majority

Respondent 44 PhD researcher Social sciences & humanities Ethnic minority

Respondent 45 PhD researcher Social sciences & humanities Ethnic majority

Respondent 46 PhD researcher Social sciences & humanities Ethnic minority

Respondent 47 PhD researcher Life & exact sciences Ethnic majority

Respondent 48 PhD researcher Life & exact sciences Ethnic majority

Respondent 49 PhD researcher Life & exact sciences Ethnic majority

Respondent 50 PhD researcher Social sciences & humanities Ethnic majority

The outline of the in‐depth interviews can be divided into four major themes. First, they were asked about their
position in academia, such as their recruitment procedure, contract type, and current timing of their PhD or post-
doctoral trajectory. Second, I asked about a description of the work climate and their relationship with key constit-
uents. This was oftentimes a starting point for respondents to discuss a critical event with colleagues or supervisors
which spontaneously led to discussing incidents of inequality, racism, sexism, and/or discrimination. If that was not the
case, I initiated a question on inequality in academia which is the third theme. Finally, I focused on mental, emotional,
and material consequences and their intent to stay or to leave academia. The duration of the interviews ranged
between 1 and 2 hours 30 minutes and are analyzed based on the strategy of Braun and Clarke (2006).
Being a female researcher with an ethnic minority background has some advantages studying this particular
topic. I sensed feelings of open‐heartedness and safety from the interviewees. Some interviewees explicitly
mentioned feeling safe talking to me and others indicated feeling they were talking to their psychologist referring
to the complete honesty and sincerity in their stories. In addition, many women related back to the interviewer's
cultural background or gender identity constructing a sense of “us” in expressions such as “you probably also know”
and “I don't need to tell you that we as women …” At the same time, I can expect that sharing the same background
might lead respondents to explain less by assuming the interviewer knows the answer. I tried to pay close attention
by asking for explicit explanations.

3 | RESULTS

Although most women shared both explicit and subtle experiences of sexist and gendered racist events, it was
interesting how they put in a good word for the “perpetrator.” They indicated how it is not their fault, but it is
something that “crawls under the skin” (R6) and that “they do not mean it, it is not intentional” (R3). R11 said “all these
things are not because of bad intentions, that's what makes it so difficult.” R10 even indicated that it is an “automatic
impulse.” The women defined the act instead of the actor as racist and/or sexist. It is not about what was intended
BOURABAIN
- 255

with the action, but rather why the action is considered racist and/or sexist. The findings suggest that everyday
racism and sexism is produced, reproduced, and transmitted in four different but interrelated forms in the academic
workplace: (i) everyday racism and sexism is maintained and reinforced within a climate in which an equality
discourse predominates merely as a smokescreen that consequently induces legitimized sexist and gendered racist
practices, which are (ii) cloning through formal and informal exclusionary practices that hinder women's partici-
pation in the everyday workplace, (iii) women experience different forms of patronized practices in which they are
undervalued as a person and/or scientist, and (iv) paternalism entails disguised problematization of women pres-
suring them into assimilating to the expected norm but simultaneously penalized for the mismatch between their
gender identity and professional identity through monitoring measures. Note that when I talk about women, this
includes the experiences of both EMAW and EMIW. If one group discusses a particular experience or practice, I
explicitly mention the differentiation of both groups.

3.1 | Smokescreen of equality

A smokescreen of equality is experienced in a paradoxical climate in which substantial attention is paid to the
construction of an inclusive academia, but does not do so effectively. Many universities have a diversity office and
policies established which are monitored by VLIR, the umbrella organization of Flemish universities (VLIR, 2018).
Besides that, a work group on gender is entirely dedicated to enforce short‐term aims regarding gender equality in
academia (VLIR High Level Task Force Gender, 2014). All universities are required to engage in establishing a
gender policy from a top‐down approach.
Most women reported disappointment towards these diversity policies. R2's explanation describes how they
are merely an instrument for window dressing:

On the surface it is very inclusive, but eventually when decisions are made these decisions are made by a
handful of people … They try very hard to listen to everything and such things, but sometimes it is just to keep
up appearances, to legitimize certain things. To say that they have listened.

For example, one of the initiatives established at all universities was the installment of reporting points
regarding transgressive behavior. R23 had a female colleague who was sexually assaulted by a man on campus. She
filed a complaint at the reporting point of her university, where she got to know about the multiple complaints
against the same perpetrator by multiple women. When she wanted to go to the police she was discouraged by the
office:

She reported him … The university's reaction was so fucking horrible, sorry, so horrible. First of all, they said
they can't do anything. They told her not to go to the police. They said they can't do anything because … he's
not a student here … and I'm like it's your campus … so you know, protecting the guy … whatever. (R29)

This is one of the many incidents where women indicated that they felt that their university did not take these
issues seriously and mainly tried to sweep them under the rug. They felt suppressed when they raised their voice
regarding an incident. R11, who received several sexual remarks from a male colleague, was one of the individuals
who filed a complaint against him:

An internal mail was sent out saying that everyone knows that he has no bad intentions and that this
person has just his way of joking around. So, with other words, we are not talking about it. I really was
like okay, this is a special way of dealing with it.
256
- BOURABAIN

Many critical scholars indicated how the installment of these reporting offices was not very effective as they
remained within the boundaries prescribed by and maintained the status quo (Ahmed, 2006; Puwar, 2004).
Not only the official offices suppressed women's experiences, colleagues expressed their denial through victim‐
blaming. R21, who witnessed sexual harassment of a student by a male colleague, received remarks such as “we
can't blame him that he tried” indicating that the woman in question was pretty and, therefore, it was tolerated to
make sexual advances. The blaming did not only come from male colleagues, but female as well. R7 was sexually
harassed by her supervisor on a frequent basis and when she finally opened up to her colleagues, some supported
her, but others tried to legitimize his behavior because of her so‐perceived flirtatious behavior:

They said I overreacted or they said that I lured him because apparently I was once going through my
hair with my hand when I was talking to him and they said that's flirting. I was really hurt because that
was a female colleague. So first she minimized it like “no he does not do that.” She said “no he does not
do that, no never, he is a good person and he doesn't mean it like that.” And then she said “I don't want
to get involved but I have to say … I saw you talking with him and you were stroking your hair.”

This shows the maintenance of a culture naturalizing overt sexist practices that are tolerated both by men and
women. Working in male‐stereotypical occupations pressures women to internalize gendered messages. They often
decide to strategize their fit by not speaking up and playing by the rules of the game (Cockburn, 1991).
Besides the installment of reporting points, many universities are pushed to have staff reflecting the diverse
student population. While no specific initiatives are put in place to achieve this aim, EMIW are pressured to be a
token. Their universities put them in the spotlight, not for their academic excellence or achievements, but to have a
“dash of color.” These women were approached to be a public figure for their university. Their hypervisibility is a tool
to measure the university's success in terms of inclusivity. R16, R29, and R31 were all asked by their department to
participate in outreach events with a particular aim to attract students with a migration background. R16 was used
as a channel to contact students with a migration background to participate in these outreach events:

I thought no I am not going to approach students like “eh you with your color do you want to
participate to an info day?,” I am not going to do that and I then explained why and they said they
understand so that's okay.

These experiences show the lack of putting diversity policies into practice. Following Sara Ahmed (2012),
diversity has become a buzzword and has a commercial value within the corporatization of universities. These
women consider diversity policies as a tool to rebrand university and, therefore, to window dress. Although
universities were initially required to establish diversity policies, the marketization of universities has significantly
downgraded the focus on ensuring equality. More specifically, diversity becomes yet another measure that is
mostly quantifiable. It becomes a measure for the performance of the university which consequently considers
diversity as an aim that needs to be ticked off. This appears through reporting offices that are not doing what they
are supposed to. Instead of supporting women, they are blamed for what happened to them. In addition, inequality
is hidden by overexposing the few EMIW to a maximum by showing them off in every outreach and PR‐related
activity. Their presence is amplified; however, they find themselves to be the only one around.

3.2 | Everyday cloning

Within a climate in which the existence of inequality is suppressed, everyday sexism and gendered racism are
sustained through both formal and informal cloning practices. I refer to cloning practices as explicit ways in which
women are excluded from academic tasks and opportunities that increase the chance of an academic career. While
BOURABAIN
- 257

every respondent is equally pressured to publish as their male counterparts, they have less access to other
academic opportunities such as teaching, going on a research stay, or conferences. While their male counterparts
are encouraged, they have to “earn” it.
R6 was at the end of her PhD and she saw how—in contrast to her female colleagues and herself—male
colleagues who were also approaching their PhD deadline were encouraged to submit in advance so they use the
remaining time applying for postdoctoral funding:

People are nearing the end, we were with a few that roughly started [their PhD] around the same
time. We are all in our third year, all male colleagues will submit earlier to apply for a postdoc. While
they [supervisors] didn't say a word to us [female colleagues]. If you start preparing [an application]
yourself, it's like “yeah you can do that, yeah we will talk about it later if you really want to do it. But
take other options into account because you know how difficult it is.” The thing is they don't mean
bad.… But it comes off wrong. It's like hey you don't have anything to look for here. And yeah, that's
remarkable, if you notice that male colleagues are really encouraged to pursue a postdoc.

In line with the research of Maxwell et al. (2019), the most discussed mechanism of formal and informal
exclusion is being a mother in academia. R31 explained how motherhood “is not only a decision between you and your
partner but also the institution.” Many women indicated being punished for having children. Punishment occurred in
two ways. First, they are punished for being a mother by personally attacking their choice. Having a child is looked
down upon and disapproved because having children is perceived to be incompatible with being an ambitious and
productive academic. It is expected to have “ambition as an early career researcher.… If you immediately start with
children, I don't know if that … that … I think it will be considered weird” (R17). R18 also confirmed this through a story
of a friend who was discouraged to start a PhD because she had children:

She should be allowed to do a PhD, it is because they expect that she would not put her work on the
first place …

This disapproval is mainly performed subtly and implicitly, to some it was made obvious. R16 remembered her
supervisor saying to colleagues that “if she [R16] gets pregnant during her PhD than I will pay for her abortion. A woman
[her supervisor] said that! Then you think like okay, I can't get pregnant.” This made her apprehensive to get pregnant.
When she finally decided to have a child, she announced her pregnancy with feelings of guilt: “You are probably not
going to like it but I am pregnant, and just the way I had to say it, now I would never say that.… And some people even
asked if it is my choice to have a child.” These women work in a climate where having children is considered a mistake
or even a “criminal act” as R13 described it:

A woman should not feel that having children is a criminal act, that you will not be punished, because I
hear colleagues, being almost afraid like: “shit [I am pregnant], luckily I will give birth right before the
summer.” And I think it shouldn't be like that.

Second, besides the personal attacks and ridicule of colleagues, women indicate they are “already” punished
because having a child plays to their disadvantage as an academic as they will not have the same amount of time nor
energy to publish as fast, to attend events, and network as other childless colleagues. Being a mother is “a burden,
and you are expected to be everywhere, if you miss something it is like: but how so, you don't have any daycare?” (R13).
These stories capture how the ideal academic identity is maintained both implicitly and explicitly through the
practice of cloning. (Cultural) cloning is a dynamic that influences supervisors in looking for someone alike (Essed &
Goldberg, 2002) and strongly determines recruitment practices. An institution and its agents will be more likely to
choose candidates that are “familiar” (Ahmed, 2012). Familiar in the sense that they look like them and, therefore,
258
- BOURABAIN

will most likely hold the same characteristics, abilities, and attitudes. Superiors advantage someone that looks like
them because of the perception that they can better estimate their research abilities and further career. Therefore,
women see how their male counterparts, sometimes having the same supervisor, are encouraged more than they
are. This is also backed by recent Flemish research showing how female PhD researchers feel less supported by
their supervisors compared to male PhD researchers (VLIR, , 2018). While this happens more implicitly, being a
mother shows overt ways of excluding them from the ideal type. Since the university is a greedy institution (Coser,
1974; Thun, 2020), academics are expected to throw themselves completely into their academic work. Only those
who invest all their time in their job are considered ambitious and willing to pursue a career in academia. As Husu's
(2005) work on motherhood in Finnish academia indicated that children are used as a “weapon” to undervalue their
work, the same can be noticed here where children are considered a “criminal act.” The terminology employed
shows the inherent violence behind the clash of a male environment and women's reproductive abilities. As Ramsay
and Letherby (2006) indicated, the ideology of motherhood also influences non‐mothers. This environment pres-
sures women to stay childless regardless of their wishes. Women who didn't yet have children said they have to
“push it back” (R31). Women with children had a stay‐at‐home partner or a partner who took a step back from their
own demanding job to take up care responsibilities.
Having the same gender as their supervisor does not seem to be the solution. Kanter (1975, 1977) described
how in masculine‐stereotypical occupations women in lower positions try to be invisible to avoid causing friction,
while female superiors felt obliged to take up masculine traits in order to fit in and succeed. Participants shared
similar experiences having female colleagues who (unintentionally) sustained the gendered environment and female
superiors were not pleased with pregnancies disregarding a work–life balance.

3.3 | Patronization

Patronizing mechanisms are defined as the undervaluation of women's presence and work by key constituents in a
variety of ways. Results show how patronizing mechanisms occur in a very specific way in academia that is both
related to their role as an academic and as an individual. First, women talk about how they are undervalued as an
academic. Although they have the expertise, they are often “forgotten” to be included or to be addressed in a
proper manner (R21):

It is about who gets invited to the meetings. It happened a couple of times that I was not assumed to
be present and then it is like “Ah you can join if you want,” but then you feel annoyed.

Women indicate feelings of invisibility. R22, for example, was in a meeting regarding the responsibilities to
supervise students and they “forgot” that she is a postdoc and thus could mentor students in writing their master's
thesis:

So, my supervisor was talking about the master thesis and they forgot that I am perfectly able to
[supervise] … and also I want to do it because I like to … finally I say “what about me?” And then they
are reminded that I can do it, but I have to [remind them].

This invisibility goes hand in hand with wrongly assuming them into non‐academic positions by students,
colleagues, and outsiders. This “mistaken identity” (Kanter, 1975) is common in so‐perceived masculine occupa-
tions. R15 was mistaken to be someone who works part‐time, insinuating that she is an administrative assistant:

… I did organize the event for the students of our department with a male postdoc. So we organized
the event together, I did some parts of it and he did some parts of it and at the end we were hanging
BOURABAIN
- 259

out with some students and then somebody asked me “so you have a part‐time job in the depart-
ment?” I was like I'm sorry who are you? It was really interesting, like the first thing they said to me
was like the part‐time job, so I had to explain to them that I'm also a postdoc, I do research you know
(laughs).

R15 said that it is in the small things giving the example of how men fail to address her with the proper title:

We were preparing this funding bid and I was really struck by the fact that … and the men from this
university and the other university were sending e‐mails and the response to them was professor this
and professor that and the response to me was Miss [R15] even though the signature on my e‐mail
says dr. [R15] and I really thought why did he fail to manage the dr. part. So, you feel undermined in all
kinds of ways.

This concealed nature of sexism makes these patronizing practices ambiguous. The “perpetrators” cannot be
held accountable for their actions because the environment legitimizes their behavior. Therefore, women feel like
they are invisible and overlooked. This is supported by R21, who explicitly experienced how she was “noticed” by a
supervisor who was looking for jury members for his thesis student:

I had someone that came looking for my boss to sit in his jury and he asked me where my boss was at
and suddenly he said “but actually you are also a postdoc, oh, you can actually also do it.” It was really
like by seeing me he noticed that I am eligible … I thought that was a weird reaction. I already work
here for more than 15 years … I already work with this person on a paper so it's not that he doesn't
know me, but it was really by seeing me that; ah you still exist.

This invisibility is reinforced by undervaluing and unacknowledging their work and abilities. Their work is the
result of “luck” (R6) or “help of others” (R15). A predominant way to downplay women's capacities is using the
smokescreen of equality by presuming their presence in academia as the result of gender policies. This was a
particular experience that was only discussed by EMAW. R15 was told by her supervisor, who was initially against
her applying for the position, that she might get it because she is a woman:

… What I would do in that situation is to see like okay how can I [the supervisor] support you, it's great
that you want to try this [applying for the position] bladibla but the best he could come up with was
actually being a woman would work in your advantage in the selection process because they are
trying to aim for gender balance.

Therefore, EMAW tend to have difficulties accepting these gender policies. They feel that gender quota
disadvantages them by downplaying their capacities. Instead of their academic work, their gender is highlighted.
R16 said “… but in general you can hire more women to get a balance, but that is not the reason why I want to get hired.”
R21 also expressed that attention to gender equality “actually has a negative effect, because now, yeah, you get
ridiculous remarks like ah yeah it is because you are a woman.” Even more, women internalize this discourse of women
getting positions that they do not earn and “that's not fair to men” (R15). EMIW experience a similar dynamic.
Instead of the gender policies, people insinuate that they are hired due to the implementation of diversity policies
which colleagues use as excuse to minimize their capacities. R29 said that her hiring as a postdoctoral researcher
has led colleagues in her department to say during a meeting that “people [R29] are not able to get a job elsewhere so
we [the department] are playing the good Samaritan.”
In addition, EMIW experienced some unique forms of patronization. Their expertise was unacknowledged in
contradicting ways. First, EMIW from the social sciences and humanities experienced a paradox in which, on the
260
- BOURABAIN

one hand, their objectivity is questioned, but on the other hand, they are also considered to be those that are
the most fit—or rather—only fit to conduct research on themes related to their identity. This means that they
were suitable for research projects around ethnic relations, migration, and/or inequality. R13 indicated how her
ethnic background is considered a weakness for an academic because her background automatically makes her
subjective:

You learn that your position as an academic having an ethnic background is just weak … on a con-
ference, when a question is asked … first it is about your ethnic background. What ethnic background
do you have? Before they ask you about the content of your presentation …

R40 is questioned about her possibility to be objective both by students as well as colleagues:

I remember once a colleague … he asked, don't you find it hard to do research on something that is so
close to your own reality, like you are almost part of that group.… And I thought wow should I be
worried about it, because in fact you are questioning my objectivity. So I felt … I knew that afterwards
I felt really insecure. I really thought … oh no, am I in the right place, can I even do this research? And
then I thought what the fuck, you are a white man, does that mean you can't research white men
(laughs).

For EMAW the gendered roles of women as emotional beings taking up care responsibilities in private and men
as rational beings governing in public devalued their work. For EMIW a double layer is visible because of the
perceived mismatch between being a scientist and being religious. Racialization is at play through the roots of a
Eurocentric humanism holding the principles of rationality, objectivity, and neutrality high. As a result, EMIW are
told by colleagues the impossibility of being an objective, rational thinker and being religious (R13):

Yes, I was really attacked like: how can you be a scientist and be religious, because they realized I was
Muslim. You fast and suddenly they are like but, wait why are you not eating? Oh, we didn't expect
that of you and then they started attacking really hard on my identity but also an attack on my
credibility, that I cannot be religious and a scientist.

Due to the continuous perception of their inability to be a valuable academic, EMIW have to work twice as
hard. R6 felt that besides herself her supervisors were also feeling pressured because they hired an ethnic minority:

I think that they felt really under pressure to prove that we [supervisors] have hired an ethic minority
and she will succeed. Because apparently it was said [by other colleagues] “why would you hire
someone like that, you know it will not work, she will not succeed.” Because we are dumb, you know
that [sarcastic tone]. We are automatically dumb, we are not as smart as them. That apparently went
around.

Although EMIW tend to work harder to prove themselves being equally able as their colleagues, making the
slightest mistake tears down their credibility. R26 working in the exact sciences is constantly penalized for failed
experiments resulting from external factors. She has often thought of quitting her job because of the aggressive
behavior of her supervisor:

Once you conduct it [the experiment] and it fails which often happens he gets mad … He has a difficult
time holding himself together and then it makes you feel really bad … Sometimes I'm scared to say
certain things. I get palpitations.
BOURABAIN
- 261

Secondly, EMIW are also called upon their perceived language deficiency. They are continuously monitored on
their language, which is specific to the Flemish context. Although these women were born and raised in Belgium,
have a degree, and are pursuing a PhD degree or already received a PhD degree at a Flemish‐speaking university,
their colleagues are constantly searching for mistakes (R13):

I once emailed a colleague at midnight and I was so tired that I even wrote the wrong date and hour
(laughs) so it was a chaotic mail and my colleague went to the dean to mention that she is not sure
whether I can give this course because “she makes language mistakes in mails.” Uhm … that hit really
hard, I was really devastated for an entire week, I cried and cried. Because the funny thing is … I am
teaching a course that no one in the team has the credentials to teach …

The great emphasis on language in the Flemish context goes back to the Flemish integration policies, influenced
by right‐wing parties that considered language proficiency as the key to integration (Hooghe, 1993). Bourdieu's
(1991) concept of legitimate language describes this dynamic in which language is considered as the key
requirement and characterizes the content of the job. Language is a tactic to make a division between the rational
and irrational, the civilized and uncivilized. Fanon's (1967) analysis of not only the black body but also the black
language, describes how “the other” should mimic the white man in its behavior and language. The “white man's
language” is a key necessity to become part of so‐defined civilized spaces, in this case the university context.
All these examples show how women's work and position in academia are undervalued and questioned. Their
work is not perceived as equally credible. The perceived misfit of the female gender identity in the traditional male
academic model reveals a hidden structure on the macro‐level. In academia, as in all parts of society, women are
still defined by their bodies. Although gender equality is of paramount importance in modern society, the patri-
archal structures have not vanished but take a disguised form. Women who are no longer excluded to the private
space, are still the “Other” in public spaces. This appears in academia—where rationality and objectivity prevail—as
epistemic sexism. In addition, EMIW are suppressed by an intersection of epistemic sexism and racism. Epistemic
sexism and racism refer to the privilege given to white male knowledge holders at universities from the Global
North. Their knowledge production is considered superior compared to knowledge produced in the rest of the
world. The danger is that the canon that is today still fundamental to most research and policies in society, is
considered universal. This universality is, however, based on the worldviews and sociohistorical experience of very
few white male academics. This superiority on a macro‐scale is translated into patronizing practices in the
day‐to‐day workplace.

3.4 | Paternalism

Compared to patronization, paternalism is a process in which primarily superiors, but also those who perceive
themselves as superior act as a dominant authority figure with the intent to control the subordinates in an
oppressive and repressive way.
Both EMAW and EMIW discussed “softer” forms of paternalism much more frequently. These forms are
legitimized through their ambiguous character. The most typical example is how suggestions given by a woman are
less validated, but if the same suggestions are made by a male counterpart they become worth considering (R21):

I have male colleagues [international master's students] who come into my office to ask something
but actually they are not taking it seriously. So, I have trained these students and when they ask me
something, literally immediately after that they go to a male colleague and ask the same thing or say
whether what I said is right. So, I tell them like you either come and ask me and be respectful or don't
bother me if you are not taking me seriously.
262
- BOURABAIN

Also, R22 mentioned how she cannot take it how her opinion always has to be validated by a male constituent:

When I suggest something between all these men it is less validated. They ignore it, but then after two
minutes, a man says the same thing and they consider it, I get crazy. Men always need each other to
validate like: ah you are doing great and as a woman you are just sitting there … I also hear it all the
time from my [female] colleagues.

Gendered racism occurred through the practice of control in two ways. First, the management of EMIW's
bodies, behavior and appearances are constantly a point of discussion, especially in informal meetings with male
colleagues. Their presence is problematized by pinpointing visible elements. The patronizing practice of questioning
their objectivity due to religious beliefs was often combined by asking respondents wearing visible religious
symbols to justify their attire. R11 had many discussions with her superiors about wearing religious signs, such as
the headscarf. The ignorance behind questioning women's attire is made explicit in R29's example:

There are older colleagues; it doesn't matter what I wear, they question whether it is cultural or
religious, even things I just buy at the H&M.

Not only their attire, but also their behavior is constantly monitored. They are expected to behave in a certain
way, and they will be addressed if they do not behave as expected. R25 was at a staff party interacting with the
waiter serving their table in an apparently too informal and jolly way. Later, she got addressed by a co‐worker
about her inappropriate behavior:

He corrected my behavior. And I felt really bad about it. At that moment I thought who are you to
correct my behavior [also because she is a postdoctoral researcher and the male co‐worker is a PhD
candidate]. I get angry if someone does that. Some people do it unconsciously, and you notice that.
But he feels better than me.

Second, EMIW experienced micro‐control in terms of work with varying intensities. R6, who decided to work
more from home in order to protect herself from a hostile environment, was quickly put on the spot by her
supervisors:

While all other colleagues can work from home … you are supposed to be here every day. I was the
only one being strictly monitored. I come in at 9am and leave at 5pm. I am here every day. Other
colleagues come at 10, 11, 12am. Sometimes they don't even show up you know, and then I had to be
in the office every day from 9am to 5pm. And I was really checked [whether I was at the office].

Asking her how she was controlled, her supervisor often asked “to come to her office to quickly discuss a mail to
really see if I am at the office.” Her other colleagues “gossip” about her absence to her bosses. R29 experienced similar
micro‐control by her supervisor:

The last 6 months [of her PhD] I lived on the faculty, I worked during the weekend as if it was normal,
my supervisor decided when I could leave for vacation. So, everything was in his hands … a lot of
control measures were implemented. Every day I had to log what I had done.

The way EMIW experience paternalistic managerialism from their supervisors was often described as
“inhumane” (R29). EMIW felt that an incentive to hire them was precisely because of the possibility to be controlling
due to their prejudiced expectation of them being submissive:
BOURABAIN
- 263

You had no voice and I felt … I had to accept it and it was really submission which was so difficult
because I don't do that for nobody … His word is law … I almost had to kneel for him. The way he
handled me, like I'm just a slave. And I had the feeling he did that precisely because I'm [respondent's
ethnicity], that I would be submissive and that he could do with me what he wanted to do.

Finally, these practices make the invisible power relations in terms of gender and ethnicity identifiable. While
most women experience paternalism through “mansplaining” or men explaining something to women assuming they
have no knowledge regarding the topic, EMIW reveal another layer. This fourth form of everyday gendered racism
is particular to this group of women because of the way gender and ethnicity intersect. Their gender identity in light
of their ethnicity brings up particular stereotypes and expectations regarding their behavior. These women, who
are perceived non‐Western and oriental are stereotyped as submissive in the household towards their husbands
and fathers. As a result, they are requested to explain the reasons for wearing, in this case, religious attire as it is
considered oppressive. The Islamophobic discourse in the Global North considers the veil, amongst others, as
imposed onto women. Women choosing to wear religious attire are considered unfree. Their superiors, however,
also want to take advantage of the perceived submissiveness through micro‐management.

4 | DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

The aim of this article was to increase our understanding of sexism and the intersection with racism in the academic
workplace from the perspective of the experienced. Conducting 50 in‐depth interviews with EMAW and EMIW
allowed four forms of everyday sexism and gendered racism in academia to be identified: smokescreen of equality,
everyday cloning, patronization, and paternalism. Overall, this research shows how the academic workplace is a
space where macro‐contextual power dynamics come together with and are revealed through micro‐practices in
individual interactions. In addition, the meso‐context of the academic institution reveals the importance of studying
sexism and racism within a particular space. The form and intensity of everyday sexism and gendered racism differs
and changes according to the space in which it is produced and reproduced.
One of the first findings showed how women wanted to make sure that the experiences they went through did
not hide a malicious intent from their colleagues/supervisors. It is, however, remarkable how the different stories
do show that women are troubled with what they have gone through. Different reasons may lie behind this rhetoric
that emphasizes the intent of the action. One reason is to divert the attention away from the “perpetrator” as a
coping strategy to deal with their experiences but also to protect themselves from possible effects of speaking out
on their career development. Another reason is that these women still have an outlook of change. Some re-
spondents discuss how these experiences have sometimes created opportunities to educate their constituents.
Three women were lucky to not have experienced any form of inequality. The stories of the other 47 women
shed light on four forms of everyday sexism and gendered racism. I do want to make a side note that these themes
do not exclude one another, but women experienced a variety of practices across these forms. These identified
forms do highlight underlying mechanisms that reinforce the behaviors and practices performed by key constitu-
ents in the daily workplace.
The organizational context in which these forms occurred are driven by an equality discourse. The imposed
ideology of living in a post‐racial and post‐gender society creeps into the academic workplace suppressing issues
and incidents from a discourse that equality is reached. This discourse allows the organization to act “blind” for the
racist and sexist practices occurring in the workplace, further perpetuating and making invisible these practices
without holding the perpetrators accountable for their actions. Although most Flemish universities have recently
introduced diversity policies and offices within their organization, scholars have showed their ineffectiveness.
Critical scholars have exposed that the concept of diversity is an empty shell (Ahmed, 2012; Mirza, 2006;
Puwar, 2004). Ahmed describes diversity as a “hopeful performative” (mis)used to rebrand the university externally,
264
- BOURABAIN

but change is opposed internally. As diversity is given a commercial value, it is merely employed as a quantifiable
“performance indicator” neglecting the supposed aim of change.
This smokescreen of equality legitimizes everyday gendered practices which occurred in the form of cloning,
patronization, and paternalism. First, cloning occurred in formal and informal ways that disadvantaged women's
career progress and opportunities. These exclusionary practices revealed the inequality regime that academia is.
The so‐perceived neutral interpretation of the “ideal academic” is exposed through motherhood, on the one hand,
and differential treatment for women and men in supporting their career, on the other. Women discussed how male
counterparts are encouraged by their supervisors to build an academic career while they were set back. Irigaray's
(1985) analogy of the “palace of mirrors” aligns with the practices of supervisors that are looking for someone
familiar. As academia is characterized by “glass ceilings” and “gender scissors,” male supervisors are more likely to
recognize themselves in their male students which maintains this palace of mirrors. Female and non‐white bodies
disrupt the coherence and create ontological anxiety (Puwar, 2004). Cloning practices, therefore, avoid this anxiety
and neglect to rethink the identity of the academic. Motherhood is one example of excluding women from the ideal
academic identity. The fear of losing the boundaries that tie academic characteristics to white, male bodies, is
according to Irigaray, met with resistance. This resistance is interestingly enough not only reproduced by the
dominant majority, but instead is supported by female constituents as well. Kanter described this more than 40
years ago, but it still applies to the functioning of gender in organizations today. Individuals who are in the minority
often cope with the environment by staying invisible. Succeeding to make oneself “unproblematic” within the
normative space often indicates the internalization of the expected attitudes that are inherently white and
masculine.
Second, patronization and paternalism highlighted the importance of an intersectional perspective. The findings
illustrate that the intersection between race and ethnicity leads to unique and different experiences for majority
and minority women. It elucidates the multiplicative effect of race on gender for minority women demonstrating
women cannot be considered a homogenous lump. For patronization, the practices are induced by epistemic sexism
and racism. Epistemic sexism and racism are the conversion of Eurocentrism and hegemonic masculinity in
academia. Academia is historically built to educate men by men to become society's ruling elite (Bhambra, 2007).
Men are the “normatives” and the knowledge holders upon which the rest are compared to. Their knowledge is
universal, therefore, invisible. This invisibility makes the knowledge from “Others” deviant. Consequently, women
encounter a lack of interest and devaluation of their work. This was much more visible for minority women that
encountered explicit conversations with colleagues that doubt their ability of being an objective rational
researcher. The joint forces of epistemic sexism and racism resulted in expectations towards minority women to
work twice as hard with no room for mistakes. Within the Flemish context, patronization also occurred in per-
ceptions of language deficiency. Women being excluded from relevant activities, and their work being undervalued,
questioned, and unacknowledged demonstrates the low worth attached to their work and presence. Organizations
put effort and work into keeping their employees by investing in work satisfaction and general wellbeing. For
women in the academic organization, there does not seem to be an incentive for the organization to keep its female
employees. Again, gender and diversity policies that do not touch upon the white and masculine structures reveal
the lack of intentions to provide equal worth to all employees' presence and work.
The paternalistic form of everyday gendered racism especially impacted minority women. As minority women
indicated, they usually feel exoticized and the expectation to be submissive. The Western discourse around mi-
nority women goes back to the Western male being the savior of the oppressed non‐Western woman (Lutz, 1991).
Non‐Western women were considered as passive agents who obeyed their fathers or husbands. This Orientalized
discourse still appears, in this context, within interactions between superiors and female researchers with a
migration background. Superiors as well as colleagues embody and internalize the orientalist notions of the “other”
woman which leads to patronizing behavior and the expectation of obedience.
Although much of the practices are frequently summed up as relatively small and irrelevant by the re-
spondents, it does not mean they are inconsequential. On the one hand, they are covert practices of resistance that
BOURABAIN
- 265

sustain the normative functioning of the academic organization (Irigaray, 1985; Puwar, 2004). It naturalizes the
whiteness and maleness of the academic space and reproduces dynamics of oppression without being held
accountable. The space remains white and masculine as many women start doubting their own abilities. They doubt
whether they earn their position, whether they belong in academia, and experience a fatigue towards the academic
environment. When asking them about their academic aspirations, many women responded not having intentions to
remain in academia. R28 summed up that “I don't like the academy, but I love research. It's just difficult to keep
functioning in a [academic] world that I cannot take seriously anymore.” While most women are passionate about
their job, it is their daily experiences in the workplace that makes them flee. This can partly explain the leaky
pipeline. For EMIW, the effects of race in the labor market leads to a different reasoning. EMIW often reasoned
that regardless of the experiences they go through, they fear not finding another job if they decide to leave. R13
clearly illustrated that “I am sure it would have been different if I was not [respondent's name]. If I was not
[respondent's ethnicity], then I would have looked for another challenge. I am scared to start over and having to
build all this from scratch.” The equality policies of universities have focused on the structural barriers women face
in hiring and recruitment. However, the treatment of women in their daily work environment should be addressed
to provide a full picture on the issues of women in academia.
The results show that diversity and gender policies need to take on a different perspective. Next to structural
efforts, policy should target the micro‐climates such as the workplace. As this research shows, women are often set
back in the everyday workplace during individual interactions with peers or superiors. In addition, hiring women
does not automatically bring an inclusive climate. Most equality policies still strictly focus on tools and measures
that are quantifiable. They work with “tick‐the‐box” measures considering reaching equality as the presence of an
increasing number of women and ethnic minorities. As Nirmal Puwar (2004) mentions, there is a difference be-
tween being present within a space and having the same rights to occupy the space. Therefore, instead of finding a
way to “welcome” and “include” women of different ethnic backgrounds, the institution's policies need to assure an
equal workplace, in which women and men have equal opportunities, and both feel like they belong in academia.
One example is the request of the EU to implement gender mainstreaming into HEI (Rees, 2007). Although this is a
first step in the right direction, gender mainstreaming should be combined with race mainstreaming to account for
the interlocking systems of race and gender.
One of the main limitations of this research is the sample of respondents. It is relevant to mention that this
research includes women that were open to discuss their experiences. Many respondents were very
much concerned about the data use and wanted to know beforehand the specific data management in
terms of privacy and anonymity. There were several women who decided not to participate in the study for reasons
of fear of recognition. For the same reasons follow‐up meetings were requested after conducting several in-
terviews. I gave them the full guarantee to look into their anonymized transcript in case they wanted to retract
some of their answers. This was never the case, but it shows the fear culture that persists in the academy and might
lead to a blind spot in the results. Another limitation is the context of study. Most early career researchers in
Belgian HEI are paid during their PhD. Compared to Anglo‐Saxon countries and other neighboring European
countries, they are in a less (financially) precarious situation which might decrease certain forms of subordination
and exploitation. Therefore, future research should consider the contract and pay stability to study forms of sexism
and gendered racism which could account for dynamics of neoliberalism in HEI.

A C K N O W LE DG M EN T S
The author would like to thank the reviewers and her colleagues from the working group Cities & Newcomers for
their valuable feedback.

ORCID
Dounia Bourabain https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4382-8268
266
- BOURABAIN

REFERENCES
ACE. (2016). Race and ethnicity in higher education. Population trends and educational attainment. Retrieved from https://www.
equityinhighered.org/indicators/u-s-population-trends-and-educational-attainment/
Acker, J. (1990). Hierarchies, jobs, bodies: A theory of gendered organizations. Gender & Society, 4(2), 139–158.
Acker, J. (2009). From glass ceiling to inequality regimes. Sociologie du Travail, 51(2), 199–217.
Ahmed, S. (2006). The nonperformativity of antiracism. Meridian, 7(1), 104–126.
Ahmed, S. (2012). On being included: Racism and diversity in institutional life. Durham, UK: Duke University Press.
Alfred, M. V. (2011). Chapter 14 poised to shatter the glass ceiling in the ivory tower. In G. Jean‐Marie & B. Lloyd‐Jones
(Eds.), Diversity in higher education (pp. 303–324). Emerald.
Anthias, F., & Yuval‐Davis, N. (1983). Contextualizing feminism—Gender, ethnic and class divisions. Feminist Review, 15(1),
62–75.
ARES. (2020). Statistiques. Indicateurs de l'enseignement Supérieur. Retrieved from https://www.ares-ac.be/fr/statistiques/
indicateurs#03-2-évolution-du-nombre-de-doctorants-depuis-2004-2005
Benschop, Y., & Brouns, M. (2003). Crumbling ivory towers: Academic organizing and its gender effects. Gender, Work and
Organization, 10(2), 194–212.
Bernal, D. D., & Villalpando, O. (2002). An apartheid of knowledge in academia: The struggle over the “legitimate”
knowledge of faculty of color. Equity & Excellence in Education, 35(2), 169–180.
Bhambra, G. (2007). Rethinking modernity: Postcolonialism and the sociological imagination, Basingstoke. UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
Bonilla‐Silva, E. (2017). Racism without racists: Color‐blind racism and the persistence of racial inequality in America, New York,
NY: Rowman & Littlefield.
Bourdieu, P. (1991). Language and symbolic power. Edited by John Thompson, (G. Raymond & M. Adamson, Trans.). Cambridge,
UK: Polity Press. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315818146
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101.
Cockburn, C. (1991). In the way of women. London, UK: Macmillan Education.
Cockburn, C. (1998). The space between us: Negotiating gender and national identities in conflict. London, UK: Zed Books.
Collins, P. H. (1986). Learning from the outsider within: The sociological significance of black feminist thought. Social
Problems, 33(6), S14–S32.
Coser, L. (1974). Greedy institutions: Patterns of undivided commitment. New York, NY: Free Press.
Crenshaw, K. (1991). Mapping the margins: Intersectionality, identity politics, and violence against women of color. Stanford
Law Review, 43(6), 1241–1299.
Danna, K., & Griffin, R. W. (1999). Health and well‐being in the workplace: A review and synthesis of the literature. Journal
of Management, 25(3), 357–384.
Davis, K. (2008). Intersectionality as buzzword: A sociology of science perspective on what makes a feminist theory suc-
cessful. Feminist Theory, 9(1), 67–85.
Demart, S., Schoumaker, B., Godin, M., & Adam, I. (2017). Des citoyens aux racines africaines: Un portrait des Belgo‐Congolais,
Belgo‐Rwandais et Belgo‐Burundais. Brussels, Belgium: Fondation Roi Baudoin.
Essed, P. (1991). Understanding everyday racism: An interdisciplinary theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Essed, P., & Goldberg, D. T. (2002). Cloning cultures: The social injustices of sameness. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 25(6),
1066–1082.
European Commission. (2019). She figures 2018. Brussels, Belgium: European Commission.
Fanon, F. (1967). Black skin, white masks. New York, NY: Grove.
Glazer‐Raymo, J. (1999). Shattering the myths: Women in academe, Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Harwood, J., & Banton, M. (1975). The race concept. London, UK: David & Charles.
Heleta, S. (2016). Decolonisation of higher education: Dismantling epistemic violence and Eurocentrism in South Africa.
Transformation in Higher Education, 1(1),1–8.
Hooghe, L. (1993). Belgium: From regionalism to federalism. Regional Politics and Policy, 3(1), 44–68.
Hult, C., Callister, R., & Sullivan, K. (2005). Is there a global warming toward women in academia? Liberal Education, 91(3),
50–56.
Husu, L. (2005). Women's work‐related and family‐related discrimination and support in academia. In Advances in gender
research (Vol. 9, pp. 161–199). Bingley, UK: Emerald (MCB UP).
Irigaray, L. (1985). Speculum of the other woman. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University.
Kanter, R. M. (1975). Women and the structure of organizations: Explorations in theory and behavior. Sociological Inquiry,
45(2–3), 34–74.
Kanter, R. M. (1977). Men and women of the corporation. New York, NY: Basic Books.
King, D. K. (1988). Multiple jeopardy, multiple consciousness: The context of a black feminist ideology. Signs: Journal of
Women in Culture and Society, 14(1), 42–72.
Knights, D., & Richards, W. (2003). Sex discrimination in UK academia. Gender, Work and Organization, 10(2), 213–238.
Lutz, H. (1991). The myth of the “other”: Western representation and images of migrant women of so called “Islamic
background.” International Review of Sociology, 2(2), 121–137.
BOURABAIN
- 267

Maxwell, N., Connolly, L., & Ní Laoire, C. (2019). Informality, emotion and gendered career paths: The hidden toll of
maternity leave on female academics and researchers. Gender, Work and Organization, 26(2), 140–157.
McConohay, J. (1986). Modern racism, ambivalence, and the modern racism scale. J. Dovidio & S. L. Gartner In Prejudice,
discrimination, and racism, (91–126). New York, NY: Academic Press.
Mirza, H. S. (2006). Transcendence over diversity: Black women in the academy. Policy Futures in Education, 4(2), 101–113.
Molefe, T. O. (2016). Oppression must fall: South Africa's revolution in theory. World Policy Journal, 33(1), 30–37.
Morley, L. (1994). Glass ceiling or iron cage: Women in UK academia. Gender, Work and Organization, 1(4), 194–204.
Mountz, A. (2016). Women on the edge: Workplace stress at universities in North America: Women on the edge. The
Canadian Geographer/Le Géographe canadien, 60(2), 205–218.
Ndlovu‐Gatsheni, S. (2013). Empire, global coloniality and African subjectivity. New York, NY: Berghahn.
Nielsen, M. W. (2017). Reasons for leaving the academy: A case study on the “opt out” phenomenon among younger female
researchers. Gender, Work and Organization, 24(2), 134–155.
Pollert, A. (1996). Gender and class revisited: Or, the poverty of patriarchy. Sociology, 30(4), 639–659.
Puwar, N. (2004). Space invaders: Race, gender, and bodies out of place. New York, NY: Berg.
Raddon, A. (2002). Mothers in the Academy: Positioned and positioning within discourses of the “successful academic” and
the “good mother.” Studies in Higher Education, 27(4), 387–403.
Ramsay, K., & Letherby, G. (2006). The experience of academic non‐mothers in the gendered university. Gender, Work and
Organization, 13(1), 25–44.
Rees, T. (2007). Pushing the gender equality agenda forward in the European Union. In M. A. D. Sagaria (Ed.), Women,
universities, and change. Gender inequality in the European Union and the United States (pp. 7–22). New York, NY:
Palgrave Macmillan.
Said, E. (1978). Orientalism. New York, NY: Vintage Books.
Sang, K. J. C., & Calvard, T. (2019). “I'm a migrant, but I'm the right sort of migrant”: Hegemonic masculinity, whiteness, and inter-
sectional privilege and (dis)advantage in migratory academic careers. Gender, Work and Organization, 26(10), 1506–1525.
Strauβ, A., & Boncori, I. (2020). Foreign women in academia: Double‐strangers between productivity, marginalization and
resistance. Gender, Work and Organization, 1–16.
Sue, D. W. (2007). Racial microaggression in everyday life: Implications for clinical practice. American Psychology, 62(4), 271–286.
Thun, C. (2020). Excellent and gender equal? Academic motherhood and “gender blindness” in Norwegian academia. Gender,
Work and Organization, 27(2), 166–180.
Thwaites, R., & Pressland, A. (2017). Being an early career feminist academic. London, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
van den Brink, M., & Benschop, Y. (2014). Gender in academic networking: The role of gatekeepers in professorial
recruitment: Gender in academic networking. Journal of Management Studies, 51(3), 460–492.
Vlaanderen, S. (2020). Metadata Onderwijs en vorming. Leerlingen‐ en studentenaantallen. Retrieved from https://www.
statistiekvlaanderen.be/nl/leerlingen-en-studentenaantallen
VLIR. (2018). Gelijke kansen en diversiteit 2014–2018. Het gelijkekansenrapport van de Vlaamse Universiteiten [Equal chances
and diversity 2014–2018. The Equal Chances Report of the Flemish Universities]. Brussel, Belgium: VLIR.
VLIR High Level Task Force Gender. (2014). VLIR Actieplan Gender. Vrouwen in de academische loopbaan en het universitair
beleid [VLIR Actionplan Gender. Women in the Academic Career and University Policy]. Brussel, Belgium: VLIR.
Walby, S. (1990). From private to public patriarchy. Women's Studies International Forum, 13(1–2), 91–104.
Ward, K. A., & Wolf‐Wendel, L. (2004). Academic motherhood: Managing complex roles in research universities. The Review
of Higher Education, 27(2), 233–257.

A U TH O R BI O GR A PH Y

Bourabain Dounia is a PhD researcher working at the research group Interface Demography from the Soci-
ology Department of the Free University of Brussels. Her research topics revolve around dynamics of inequality
within different domains of life. In her most recent work, she has paid particular attention to everyday racism
and sexism within higher education institutions.

How to cite this article: Bourabain D. Everyday sexism and racism in the ivory tower: The experiences of
early career researchers on the intersection of gender and ethnicity in the academic workplace. Gender Work
Organ. 2021;28:248–267. https://doi.org/10.1111/gwao.12549