Abstract: Despite more women in the higher education workforce, white and minoritized women remain underrepresented in STEM fields (Johnson et al., 2008; NSF, 2017). Research shows most academic institutions imagine their policies and practices as gender neutral (Van den Brink & Benchop, 2012), which proliferates biased practices preventing career advancement (Acker, 2006). Leaders have the potential to affect change by reconceptualizing the promotion process, particularly during COVID. This research draws on feminist organizational change theory to explore leader beliefs about gender inequality and promotion at one university and how this informs their work during the promotion process. We specifically ask: 1. How do administrative leaders discuss their role in the promotion to full process at the university, college, and individual levels? 2. How do they discuss the impact of COVID on the promotion process?
Methods Research Design and Sampling As part of an on-going NSF ADVANCE study, we used purposive sampling, we recruited 13 leaders (e.g., Provost, deans, associate deans) and 19 STEM department chairs to participate in interviews via Zoom where they discussed the process, procedures, and their experiences and perspectives of promotion. Data Analysis We employed feminist discourse analysis to understand how inequality experienced by women was sustained or challenged through language by their leaders (Lazar, 2005). We adhered to FDA standards as we created themes from initial coding (e.g., Sisson & Iverson, 2014; Tilley, 2018) that makes visible invisible realities; remains inherently intersectional; allows for sense-making in relation to power differences; and contextualizes discourse reflective of larger society and not necessarily an indication of sexism or racism. Preliminary Findings We identified three primary management frameworks: femocrats (feminists in power positions to support women) (Lee, 1997); neutral bureaucrats (individuals set aside personal beliefs to carry out policies) (Beetham, 1974); and gatekeepers (individuals restrict access as they have become indoctrinated into systems of oppression) (Bourdieu & Passeron, 1990), each engaged differently with the promotion process. Lack of Ownership over Promotion At the university level, leadership generally agreed that promotion to full is an important part of the faculty life cycle and identified gender inequalities. To elaborate, three male participants centered the issue on needing to hire more women, while the others acknowledged that the standards unfairly required women faculty to produce at the same rate as men. However, they did not view themselves as contributing to gender inequality. At the college level, participants either complied with university policy or adapted/expanded policies within their colleges. The latter was motivated by avoiding lawsuits or making the process more transparent and equitable. The lack of consistent approaches allowed for an outsized influence of informal structure that exacerbated gender inequality in promotion. Standards are Gender, Race, and COVID-19 Neutral At the university and college level, the participants concluded that standards were inequitable rather than inherently sexist/racist: standards need to be tailored to the field (particularly research productivity and service). At the individual level, some leaders were unclear about how to change, while others expressed an unwillingness to change the status quo. Thus, most did not challenge the appropriateness of research, teaching, and service. More importantly, COVID-19 did little to impact these beliefs as most participants cited faculty’s ability to stop their tenure clocks if the need arose. Gender was only acknowledged when pregnancy impacted an individual’s ability to meet standards. However, any family leave policies extended to men and only related to “stopping the clock”. Femocats are Outnumbered Collectively, women leaders initiated more transparent systems and acknowledged the potential determinantal COVID-19 effect on some faculty. Neutral bureaucrats and gatekeepers, often men, outnumbered femocrats. Participants who spoke as neutral bureaucrats focused on their work as maintaining compliance, consistency, transparency, and efficiency. On further analysis, this discourse allied with gatekeeping; they were confident that they identified and supported individuals that “deserve” promotion based on their college’s specific standards. Interpersonal relationships between faculty and leadership did play a role in determining who went up for promotion. These instances were often gendered and racialized. Conclusion Feminist discourse analysis revealed that a tension between wanting an equitable and transparent process but not wanting to change promotion standards to better support women, even during a pandemic. Ambiguous promotion processes and lack of leadership support served to exacerbates potential inequities in the system (Acker, 2006). Moreover, femocratic-style leaders were unable to affect change beyond their department or college when others failed to recognize gender inequality in the promotional process.
