Whose Problem is It? Gender Differences in Faculty Thinking about Campus Service

Teachers College Record - Tập 118 Số 8 - Trang 1-38 - 2016
KerryAnn O’Meara1
1University of Maryland, College Park

Tóm tắt

Background/ContextEmpirical evidence suggests women faculty spend more time in campus service than men, which perpetuates inequality between men and women because research is valued more than service in academic reward systems, especially at research universities.Purpose/Focus of StudyIn this study I apply insights from research on gender inequality to examine whether women and men faculty at a research university were thinking about their campus service differently. I add to the literature by (1) making faculty thinking about campus service visible, (2) examining how this thinking is constrained by gender, and the gendered nature of organizations, and (3) revealing how individualistic and cosmopolitan orientations, and communal and local orientations appear together in faculty thinking about campus service.Research DesignMy research assistants and I conducted 60–75 minute-long, semistruc-tured interviews with 88 faculty including 34 men and 54 women on their work environment experiences. Interview questions focused on choices that faculty had made to emphasize different kinds of work (teaching, research, service), balance work priorities, and succeed.Findings/ResultsOverall, more women framed campus service in communal terms and expressed local orientations toward campus service; more men positioned service as a campus problem, and noted their own interests to avoid or minimize involvement in campus service so as not to hurt their career. In a smaller group of cases, (e.g., four men and five women) the faculty member expressed the dominant pattern for the other gender; however, even in these cases participants provided examples of the dominant pattern for their gender as well. In all cases, women and men were influenced by gendered ways of thinking about work, and gendered organizational practices that permeated their socialization and work environments.Conclusions/RecommendationsFindings suggest that interventions are needed to affect thinking about campus service within university environments, as thinking shapes gendered divisions of labor. Sharing campus service data transparently, developing department consensus about appropriate levels of service contributions, and developing a sense of collective ownership for academic programs are examples of organizing practices that could generate change toward more gender neutral divisions of labor. Addressing the complex issue of inequality in campus service is not only about counting the numbers of service activities, although this is important. It is also critical to understand how faculty may be approaching the issue, the forces shaping their thinking, and the consequences of their thinking for individual careers and the future of the academic community.

Từ khóa


Tài liệu tham khảo

10.1177/089124390004002002

10.1177/0891243206289499

10.1080/0954025032000170309

10.1080/0305764960260309

10.1353/jhe.2002.0043

10.1023/A:1003972214943

10.1023/A:1018741404199

10.1007/s10734-010-9329-3

10.1108/02610151211209081

10.1080/00091380409605083

10.1111/j.1468-0432.2009.00510.x

10.2979/NWS.2004.16.1.194

Blackburn R. T., 1995, Faculty at work: Motivation, expectation, satisfaction., 10.56021/9780801849428

Blackmore J., 2007, Performing and reforming leaders: Gender, educational restructuring, and organizational change, 10.1353/book5169

Bonilla-Silva E., 2006, Racism without racists: Color-blind racism and the persistence of racial inequality in the United States.

10.1037/a0021831

10.2307/1981464

Creswell J., 2007, Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches, 2

10.1037/0033-2909.122.1.5

Cuadraz G. H., 1997, Thought and Action: The NEA Higher Education Journal, 13, 103

10.1353/jhe.2006.0040

Eagly A. H., 1987, Sex differences in social behavior: A social-role interpretation.

10.1111/0022-4537.00241

10.1037/0033-2909.108.2.233

10.2307/258557

10.1353/rhe.1993.0002

Fairweather J. S., 1996, Faculty work and public trust: Restoring the value of teaching and service in American academic life

10.1353/jhe.2005.0027

Fouad N., 2000, Report of the Task Force on Women in Academe

10.2307/2112772

10.1007/s10961-006-7209-x

Gibson K. J., 2006, Academic Exchange Quarterly, 10, 160

Glaser B. G., 1967, The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research

10.1080/00221546.2014.11777324

10.2307/2391000

10.1353/rhe.2012.0031

10.1086/660756

10.1080/10911350802171120

Hayek F. A., 1994, The road to serfdom.

10.1037/0021-9010.89.3.416

10.1177/0002716204268185

Kanter R. M., 1977, Men and women of the corporation

10.1353/jhe.2002.0038

Kvale S., 2009, Interviews: Learning the craft of qualitative research interviewing, 2

10.1080/00221546.2014.11777323

10.1007/s11162-011-9230-7

10.1146/annurev.so.14.080188.001535

10.1016/j.econedurev.2007.04.002

Masse M. A., 2010, Over ten million served: Gendered service in language and literature workplaces., 10.1353/book1361

Merriam S. B., 1998, Qualitative research and case study applications in education

Miles M. B., 1994, Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook.

10.1353/rhe.2005.0046

Misra J., 2011, Academe, 97, 2

10.1111/j.1573-7861.2012.01319.x

10.1017/S1049096513000073

National Women's Studies Association., 2013, Women's studies scholarship: A statement by the national women's studies association field leadership working group.

Nettles M. T., 2000, National center for education statistics' statistical analysis report 1993 national study of postsecondary faculty: Salary, promotion, and tenure status of minority and women faculty in U.S. colleges and universities.

10.1353/jhe.2007.0018

Niehaus E., 2014, Innovative Higher Education, 40, 1

O'Meara K., 2004, Journal of Higher Education, 75, 178

Padilla A. M., 1994, Educational Researcher, 1994, 24

10.2307/2943903

10.1353/jhe.2007.0027

10.1016/j.jvb.2010.04.006

10.1017/S1049096510001927

10.1353/rhe.2007.0079

10.1177/0891243204265349

10.1023/B:RIHE.0000019591.74425.f1

10.1037/0022-3514.74.3.629

10.1037/a0022953

10.2307/146070

Smith D. E., 1990, The conceptual practices of power: A feminist sociology of knowledge.

10.1080/027321790518735

10.1177/107780040200800103

Stout P. A., 2007, NWSA Journal, 19, 124, 10.1353/ff.2007.a224764

Strauss A., 1990, Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques.

Sturm S., 2006, Harvard Journal of Law & Gender, 29, 247

Tierney W., 2003, Challenges for governance: A national report.

Tierney W. G., 1996, (En)gender(ing) socialization: In promotion and tenure: Community and socialization in academe.

Trower C. A., 2012, Success on the tenure track: Five keys to faculty job satisfaction, 10.1353/book.15132

10.1353/jhe.2002.0013

10.1037/a0024630

10.1037/a0012837

Turner C. S. V., 2002, Faculty of color in academe: Bittersweet success

10.1007/BF01544799

10.1007/s11162-005-9391-3

Valian V., 1998, Why so slow? The advancement of women

10.1111/j.1527-2001.2005.tb00495.x

Vogt W. P., 2012, When to use what research design

Ward K., 2003, Faculty service roles and the scholarship of engagement

10.2307/2393789

10.1007/BF00288100

Williams J., 2014, What works for women at work: Four patterns every woman should know, 10.18574/nyu/9781479871834.001.0001

Wing A. K., 2003, Critical race theory: A reader

10.1017/CBO9781139015431.014

10.1177/0891243210386728

10.1525/9780520332485

10.1002/ir.20022

Yin R. K., 2009, Case study research: Design and methods, 4

10.1177/0361684313498573

Thông tin
Thông tin xuất bản

Teachers College Record

Tập 118 Số 8

1-38

Thông tin tác giả