Loaded dice: games playing and the gendered barriers of the academy

Abstract

This paper explores the perceptions and experiences of women academics in the UK, participating in a small-scale qualitative study exploring career progression and encountered institutional obstacles. The accounts are considered in terms of both disadvantageous institutional strategies as well as interpersonal ones governing dayto-day working relationships. The findings contribute to a growing body of international research on gender constructions in the academy, where here both inhibiting and exclusionary barriers are examined in focus group discussions in terms of gendered constructions that are perceived to impact upon the career opportunities of women academics. Analysis of data encouraged the employment of a ludic construction in this critical exploration of games playing and 'gamesmanship' (a masculinised term); these being themes raised in the focus group discussions as representing blocks and challenges to women's academic careers.

University staff and flexible work: inequalities, tensions and challenges

“…Through these interactions, focus groups produce 'synergistic effects' that are unique to the method (Stewart & Shamdasani, 2015). Focus groups have proven fruitful for exploring work-family issues among university staff, capturing perspectives beyond official discourses to understand how policies operate in practice Crabtree & Shiel, 2018;Waters & Bardoel, 2006).…”

Diferencias de género en la carrera académica en contabilidad en la universidad pública española

“…Existen trabajos que explican las diferencias de género en la carrera académica por el efecto que tiene la maternidad en ella (Gallardo, 2021;Huopalainen & Satama, 2019;Toffoletti & Starr, 2016;Ceci et al, 2014;, otros ponen de manifiesto que las desigualdades son impulsadas principalmente por la existencia de redes dominadas por hombres en los conse-jos editoriales (Blau et al, 2010) o en los comités científicos (Hospido & Sanz, 2019). También han sido analizados factores institucionales como los procedimientos de selección dentro de los departamentos académicos y facultades (Crabtree & Shiel, 2018;Bagues et al, 2017;De Paola, 2016;Ceci et al, 2014) o los procedimientos de selección pública (Bosquet et al, 2019;Marini & Meschitti, 2018;Pautasso, 2015). Las investigaciones han intentado explicar los sesgos de género mediante las diferencias en las áreas de investigación y producción científica (Corsi et al, 2018;Zacchia, 2017;King et al, 2016;Chavance & Labrousse, 2018;Sarsons, 2015;Baccini et al, 2014;Lee et al, 2013;Ginther y Khan, 2004y Bettio & Rosselli, 2001; entre otros) y en asignaciones de tareas en el trabajo (Ivancheva et al, 2019;Vesterlund et al, 2015).…”

A ‘new (ab)normal’?: Scrutinising the work-life balance of academics under lockdown

“…Both Morley (2013) and O'Connor (2015) succinctly argue that such figures indicate strong gender bias irrespective of the normativity of socially constructed gendered, personal responsibilities. Most women academics, compared to male colleagues, are concentrated in the lower hierarchical ranks where career progression is constrained (Ashencaen Crabtree and Shiel 2018). The extant research evidence suggests that academic women are more likely to undertake less valorised academic tasks: teaching and administration, as opposed to elite research-focused pathways (Eddy and Ward 2015;Ashencaen Crabtree and Shiel 2019), garnering greater career rewards.…”