Whose Problem is It? Gender Differences in Faculty Thinking about Campus Service
Tóm tắt
Empirical 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.
In 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.
My 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.
Overall, 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.
Findings 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
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.
Creswell J., 2007, Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches, 2
Cuadraz G. H., 1997, Thought and Action: The NEA Higher Education Journal, 13, 103
Eagly A. H., 1987, Sex differences in social behavior: A social-role interpretation.
Fairweather J. S., 1996, Faculty work and public trust: Restoring the value of teaching and service in American academic life
Fouad N., 2000, Report of the Task Force on Women in Academe
Gibson K. J., 2006, Academic Exchange Quarterly, 10, 160
Glaser B. G., 1967, The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research
Hayek F. A., 1994, The road to serfdom.
Kanter R. M., 1977, Men and women of the corporation
Kvale S., 2009, Interviews: Learning the craft of qualitative research interviewing, 2
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.
Misra J., 2011, Academe, 97, 2
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.
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
Smith D. E., 1990, The conceptual practices of power: A feminist sociology of knowledge.
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
Turner C. S. V., 2002, Faculty of color in academe: Bittersweet success
Valian V., 1998, Why so slow? The advancement of women
Vogt W. P., 2012, When to use what research design
Ward K., 2003, Faculty service roles and the scholarship of engagement
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
Yin R. K., 2009, Case study research: Design and methods, 4