VISIBILITY, GENDER, AND THE CAREERS OF WOMEN FACULTY IN AN INDIAN UNIVERSITY1

McGill Journal of Education, Fall 2003 by Chanana, Karuna

ABSTRACT. This paper highlights the process that creates inequalities in male and female career patterns and their unequal representation in positions of worth and authority in an Indian university. Based on a quantitative and a qualitative case study of gendered career patterns the paper shows how organisational and management practices discriminate against women. It contrasts the visibility of men linked to centers of power with that of women linked to constructions of passivity and shows how these social constructions impact on procedures for appointment, promotion and governance.

VISIBILITE, PARITE SEXUELLE ET CARRIERES POUR LES FEMMES DANS UNE UNIVERSITE EN INDE

RESUME. Ce document fait ressortir le processus qui cree les inegalites entre les modeles de carriere masculins et feminins et leur representation inegale dans les postes de prestige et d'autorite d'une universite indienne. Fonde sur une etude de cas a la fois quantitative et qualitative et s'appuyant sur deux etudes de modeles de carriere selon le sexe, il montre comment les pratiques organisationnelles et de gestion sont discriminatoires envers les femmes. Il met en valeur le contraste entre la visibilite des hommes lies aux centres de pouvoir et la position des femmes ayant un profil passif et en deduit que ces structures sociales se repercutent sur les processus amenant aux nominations, aux promotions et aux postes de gestion publique.

This paper highlights inequalities in male and female career patterns and unequal representation in positions of worth and authority in Indian universities. The underlying premise of this paper is that organizational rules, regulations and procedures are not free of social and cultural constraints. They are permeated by gendered attitudes and values.

Scholars have begun to question the image of the university as a neutral space and have started to look at features of its bureaucratic organisation and the basic assumptions underlying organisational analyses (Trembley 1999). They explain the absence of women leaders and managers as being closely interlinked with universities as gendered institutions (Brooks and Mackinnon 2001; Joyner and Preston 1998; Rosener 1990). The relationship between masculinity and management has been studied widely (David and Woodward 1998; Hearn 1998; Pritchard 1996). Feminist scholars have critiqued the traditional concept of leadership as being based on male experience. Blackmore (1999) argues that the concept of leadership has to be understood relative to power/gender/knowledge relations (1999, p. 17). According to Eggins, 'implicit cultural biases. . . often the barriers to a woman's appointment as a college president were not so much in her abilities and preparation as in the expectations and conceptual blinkers that prevented others from being able to see her capabilities as clues to leadership ability' (1997, p. xiv).

Over the past half century, the number of women has increased at all levels of education all over the world. However, despite higher levels of education, their qualifications do not translate into corresponding occupational choices and opportunities for positions of status and authority within the university (Brooks, 1997a). Referring to women's experience, it is generally noted that they either move very slowly or hardly ever to the top because they face a 'chilly climate' in the universities (Ramsay, 1995; Mukherjee, 2000; Joyner &. Preston, 1998). Others have referred to the 'glass ceiling' that women face while moving up (David & Woodward, 1998). Barriers to women's promotion and moving up in the universities are well-known (Joyner & Preston, 1998; Brooks, 1997a; Shakeshaft, 1989; Ramsay, 1995). Men faculty tend to publish more than women (Smulders, 1997; Indiresan et al, 1995) either due to problems inherent in the academic structures (Brooks, 1997a) or because women cannot give time to professional development when they are discharging dual responsibilities at work and at home.

The reasons for this are complex. Feminist studies have highlighted the processes of power at work in universities and academic institutions. Although in many institutions there have been changes in managerial practices since the 1990s, Hearn (1998) shows that the management and organisation of knowledge has been historically monopolised by men and that universities do not 'naturally' challenge this. Many universities, 'are run according to hierarchical systems of organisation which are not consistent with the democratic and liberal ethic adopted by these institutions' (Ramazanoglu, 1987, p. 61). Often the general structural mechanisms in higher education represent a patriarchal organisational culture (Townley, 1993). Brooks explores the relationship between gender, power and the academy. She investigates the gap between the model of equality and academic fairness and the sexist reality of the academy. She also argues that 'there is an apparent contradiction between the liberal ideology and egalitarian aims of the academy, the reality of competitive academic careers in male-dominated hierarchies which leads to endemic sexism and racism in defence of male privilege' (1987, p. 1). There is thus a need for studies that go beyond the unequal participation of women academics and the issues of unequal pay and promotional opportunities and which look at university structures, processes, and their ideological underpinnings (Morrison et al, 1992).