New managerialism in the academy: Gender bias and precarity

Abstract

In the era of global competition, academic institutions are increasingly being managed as efficient organizations where early career academics are the most vulnerable group in the academic hierarchy. We use gender budgeting to deconstruct the financial and managerial processes and procedures in a selected academic institution in Iceland. Drawing on multiple data collection methods, we argue that new managerialism enhances the precarious position of early career academics, especially women and those in the more feminized fields. Furthermore, we show that the system's bias in favour of so‐called hard science generates gendered consequences for early career academics. We demonstrate this structural gender bias in each of the first three stages of an academic career: PhD, postdoc and other temporary positions, and assistant professorship. By highlighting the gendered consequences of new managerialism, we want to direct attention to the need to include a gender perspective in the budgeting and all the decision‐making processes in academic institutions.

Precarity, gender and care in the neoliberal academy

“…As affective relations of love and care were dominant narrative in women's stories of their working lives, we have focused this article on their preoccupations. And while the narratives of our informants are context‐embedded within the Anglo‐Saxon academy, similar processes have been observed in other countries in Europe (Bozzon et al, ; Steinþórsdóttir, Smidt, Pétursdótti, Einarsdóttir, & Le Feuvre, ) and beyond (Bosanquet et al, ).…”

The curious under‐representation of women impact case leaders: Can we disengender inequality regimes?

“…Finally, while the new impact policy agenda has been effective in showcasing the wider benefits of university research, there is an imperative to inform decision‐makers (Steinþórsdóttir et al, ) and academics about our findings that only a quarter of REF 2014 business and management cases were led by women and over half of these were sole authored. We call for ‘academic activism' (Rhodes, Wright, & Pullen, , p. 139) with the aim of ‘unsettling' (Bird, ) gendered bureaucracies in higher education through political intervention.…”

“…There is gender bias in the research that men and women conduct (Knights & Kerfoot, ) and the value ascribed to certain fields. Steinþórsdóttir et al () argued that structural gender bias within new managerialism and marketized higher education makes academic women based in feminized fields more vulnerable. It appears to be a norm for some men in the academy to appropriate impact to display political capital.…”

“…When applied to our empirical data, Figure allows us to show that despite assumptions of meritocracy and fairness in a knowledge‐intensive sector like the business and management education field, consistent with the literature on academic productivity (e.g., Bentley, ; Bird, ; Cole & Singer, ; Eisend & Schuchert‐Güler, ), cultural norms set by men which disadvantage women were apparent in the experiences of our respondents. There is gender bias in the research that men and women conduct (Knights & Kerfoot, ) and academic women based in feminized fields are more vulnerable (Steinþórsdóttir et al, ) to being discriminated against.…”

“…Against this backdrop, universities provide interesting examples of precarious workplaces and of gender bias (Steinþórsdóttir, Brorsen Smidt, Pétursdóttir, Einarsdóttir, & Le Feuvre, ; Yarrow, ). In the academy, men gain career advantage from peer networks (Crane, ; de Solla Price & Beaver, ) of powerful, prestigious and influential ‘in‐groups' of other men who control research funding and new scientific ideas.…”