Accessing Academic Citizenship: Excellence or Micropolitical Practices?

Abstract

 Procedural subversion and selective gender blindness  Gendered devaluation and stereotypes  Relational practices involving sponsorship by individual power holders  Inbreeding favoring 'insiders' or local fit This chapter highlights variation in the construction of excellence and the way in which informal power is used in such micropolitical practices, with consequences for access to various kinds of academic citizenship. Theoretical frameworkThe theoretical perspective is that of Feminist Institutionalism (FI) (Mackay et al. 2010, Mackay 2011. Building on the work of Acker (1990Acker ( , 2006 on gendered organisations and Connell (1987, 2002) on gender regimes, feminist institutionalism is concerned with "the gendered character of institutions and the gendering effects of institutions" and helps us "answer some of the big questions and real-world puzzles about gendered power inequalities in public and political life" (Mackay 2011: 181). FI sees gender operating at a structural and cultural level and at a formal and informal level. Each institution has a particular 'gender regime' (Connell 2002: 53) that operates through a "'hidden' day-to-day interplay of formal and informal norms with gendered implications" (Verge et al. 2018: 88). FI includes a focus on the ways in which such informal relationships and the unwritten rules governing them perpetuate gendered patterns. Little attention has been paid by FI to HERIs. Mackay et al. (2010: 580) see gender as a 'constitutive element of social relations based upon perceived (socially constructed and culturally variable) differences between women and men, and as a primary way of signifying (and naturalising) relations of power and hierarchy'. Thus, it suggests that a devaluation of women is implicit in the very construction of gender.Gendered structures, culture, procedures and practices legitimate that devaluation.The concept of micropolitics was originally used by Ball (1987: 280) to highlight informal power in schools, and particularly to reveal the 'darker side' of organisational life'.He saw conflict and domination reflected in the use of informal power, focusing on the control strategies pursued by heads and the politics of advancement. The concept of micropolitics (sic) was applied by Morley (1999: 4) to higher education focusing on 'everyday practices…. Micropolitics is about influence, networks, coalitions, political and

Progress, but at the Expense of Male Power? Institutional Resistance to Gender Equality in an Irish University

“…refusal to challenge what is seen as “core mission” of the university and “fixing the women”. These have been identified in other studies ( O’Connor, 2014 ; Burkinshaw and White, 2017 ; O’Connor, 2020b ; Peterson et al, 2021 ; Temitope Igiebor, 2021 ). We also identify two sub-categories of the third stage viz.…”

“…Up to 2016 there was no scoring of candidates by the board; nor were there any strategies to eliminate conflicts of interests between the members and the applicants. It seems possible that applicants who had “paid forward” by doing favors for powerful members of the board were likely to be favored ( O’Connor, 2020b ).…”

“…This reflects a collegial ethos ( Lynch et al, 2012 ), giving them (predominantly men), an opportunity to influence the process. Given informal practices such as sponsorship and homosociability ( O’Connor, 2020b ), this is likely to advantage men and disadvantage women.…”

“…It is enacted by formal male dominated masculinist structures which can predetermine regulations and practices regarding recruitment and promotion and therefore limit access to senior positions. This formal exercise of hidden or stealth power is supported by informal practices, which have been referred to as micropolitical practices ( Morley, 2006 ; van den Brink et al, 2010 ; O’Connor, 2020b ). These include “the strategies and tactics used by individuals and groups in an organization to further their interests” ( van Den Brink et al, 2010 : 25).…”

“…They include gendered devaluation, stereotyping, procedural subversion, sponsorship, inbreeding etc. ( Martin, 2003 ; O’Connor 2020b ). Given the male dominated structure and culture in universities, even if these micropolitical practices are not overtly gendered, they are likely to favor men.…”