Organisational Characteristics That Facilitate Gender-Based Violence and Harassment in Higher Education?

Abstract

Gender-based violence and sexual harassment (GBVH) by and towards academics and students has been under-theorised at an organisational level in higher education institutions (HEIs). The methodology involves a critical review of the literature on GBVH and organizational responses to it, locating it in the context of an analysis of organizational power. The theoretical perspective involves a focus on power and workplace bullying. It identifies three power-related characteristics of academic environments which it is suggested facilitate GBVH: their male-dominant hierarchical character; their neoliberal managerialist ethos and gender/intersectional incompetent leadership which perpetuates male entitlement and toxic masculinities. These characteristics also inhibit tackling GBVH by depicting it as an individual problem, encouraging informal coping and militating against the prosecution of perpetrators. Initiating a discussion and action at organizational and state levels about GBVH as a power-related phenomenon, challenging the dominant neo-liberal ethos and the hierarchical character of HEIs, as well as reducing their male dominance and increasing the gender competence of those in positions of power are seen as initial steps in tackling the problem.

Men run academic track; women jump sexist hurdles

“…These Danish context findings about sexism and sexual harassment are supported by other studies showing that belonging to a minority in an academic degree or a workplace puts you at risk of sexist/ sexual hostility and unwanted sexual attention (Fitzgerald et al, 1995). This research shows that sexist/ sexual hostility and sexual harassment are much more likely to occur if a workplace or study environment has power differentials between men and women, where men are overrepresented or hold positions of higher status than women (Illies et al, 2003;McCabe and Hardman, 2005;Willness et al, 2007;Easteal and Judd, 2008;O'Connor et al, 2021). It is precisely this asymmetrical power constellation that we typically see in STEM degrees, as well as the physics department from which we collected concrete data.…”

“…A recent and comprehensive review of the literature on genderbased violence and sexual harassment in higher education (O'Connor et al, 2021) suggests two structural interventions instead: 'reducing HEI's [higher education institutions] male dominance and increasing the gender competence of those in positions of power' (p 10). We need to challenge and change the male norm in universities and educate the people in power to see and address gender inequalities.…”

“…In fact, Dora reveals that the lecturer has been allocated a topic which does not map well with her our interventions towards the majority group's blind spots. That is, to ensure that we remove sexist and sexual harassment hurdles from women's career paths, we need to ensure that male students and male staff are made aware of the asymmetrical workload which is currently placed on female students and staff (O'Connor et al, 2021). We need to make everyone understand that these hurdles are unjust and unacceptable.…”

Career implications of career shocks through the lens of gender: the role of the academic career script

“…, 2021). The dominant culture in academia is still homosocial with a focus on “mate-ocracy” (O'Connor et al. , 2021) which may lead to higher levels of mutual trust and an exchange of support and loyalty between supervisor and male academics for dealing with career shocks.…”

“…For individuals with specific social identities in the workplace, such as women, traditional career success notions are experienced as challenging to deal with (Acker, 2006;Van Laer et al, 2019). Attention for gender differences is especially crucial in the academic context, which is often characterized by practices of hegemonic masculinity (Bleijenbergh et al, 2013;O'Connor et al, 2021). Surprisingly, then, although research has shown that work practices shape career opportunities in a gendered way, the question of how career shocks shape the career paths of men and women in academia has so far received little attention.…”