At the leading edge – does gender still matter? A qualitative study of prevailing obstacles and successful coping strategies in academia

What are the obstacles that hinder successful female careers?

My analysis reveals that top leading female academics are confronted with three major obstacles on their career path: (1) informal encounters and stereotypical profiling, (2) (male-dominated) social networks and (3) the conjunction of geographical mobility and family issues. Leading positions in academia are highly competitive. Apart from professional qualifications, other less objectively measurable factors influence the decision-making process. Based on their experience in academia, the female academics in my study emphasize the relevance of informal communication as an impeding factor and obstacle in their careers. In this domain, informal encounters and off-the-record remarks can operate as decisive factors in social exclusion. They can be employed intentionally in order to voice disagreement without having to engage in discussion on a factual level; open confrontation or negotiation of viewpoints is thus avoided. This not only means avoiding responsibility for off-the-record remarks, it also means that such remarks are obviously less subject to reflection since they cannot be attributed to any specific individual and are thus not subject to justification. One of my interviewees describes a special mechanism of social exclusion that involves evaluating the candidate largely on a personal level and relegating professional aspects to the margins – in this case, in the specific situation of the recruitment procedure for a leading position. In this instance, the intention is to present an evaluation based on personal appearance or even physical characteristics, in order to deflect attention away from the quality of job-relevant decisions. The remarks are not so much concerned with concrete details but instead remain quite vague:

Suddenly I was confronted with discussions which I didn’t know even existed. … I learned that it is definitely impossible to discuss issues frankly … . People were talking with a lack of objectivity and in a very informal way; people who didn’t even know me. It just happened that everybody was talking about me as a person and not whether I would be able to handle my job. They talked about my clothes, my appearance and they just spread rumours about me. … The whole discussion was very emotional. In the end, it remained completely unclear whether or not there actually was a problem. (Interview 5)

This is remarkable as the statement indicates that female academics are subjected to informal, highly personalized processes of appraisal, especially when it comes to recruitment procedures for leading positions. Furthermore, my analysis reveals that this obstacle tends to be associated rather with a management career than a research career. In this area, one also observes gender-specific promotion processes.

The problematic aspect of informal encounters and processes is that they may obscure whether or not there is a real, substantive cause for concern that actually needs to be dealt with. Transparency and accountability in organizational and decision-making structures would help to counteract the effects of informal communications in everyday work, as well as in recruitment processes. This would aid in overcoming practices of inequality that have led to an under-representation of women among full professors and rectors (Van den Brink, 2010; Van den Brink et al., 2010). The interview partners indicate that women tend to be subject to informal and personalized forms of communication more frequently than men in identical leading management positions and in recruitment processes. In line with this suggestion, Settles et al. (2006) find that female academics experience structural disadvantages more frequently, thus negatively affecting their job satisfaction as well as their productivity and job outcomes. Moreover, in the opinion of my interviewees, women – especially those in the public eye – seem to be judged more in terms of their appearance or their behaviour and less frequently in terms of actual qualifications. By doing so, visibly feminine attributes are privileged and the discourse is conducted on an emotional level.

In connection with informal communication, the interviewees outlined the importance of social and professional networks for successful careers (Bourdieu, 1985). Integration in the academic community, particularly access to formal and informal networks, has become crucial. Most importantly, the analysis of the interviews reveals various differences between academic disciplines. In the opinion of the interviewees, female academics remain disadvantaged regarding access to networks, especially in the natural and technical sciences. DeWelde and Laursen (2011: 577) provide similar results: they show that especially in the fields of science, technology, engineering and mathematics women are excluded from ‘old boys’ clubs’ that provide access to knowledge, mentoring and opportunities. The women substantiate this perspective in that admission is partly based on informal or non-transparent rules and certain positions are often only open to male academics. The resulting negative consequences for female careers point to a lack of information regarding recruitment procedures and fewer potential cooperation partners who might positively influence either their research output or their professional progress.

Male networks frequently show a long history of traditional interrelations and still play a decisive role in terms of power, at least in specific fields of research. Interviewee number 3 points out the relevance of exclusively male networks in her field of natural science:

In my specific field of research, nearly all networks are male networks. It has always been like that. I knew that. But when you’re confronted with that in everyday life, you get to know what it really means. Networks are important in order to get acquainted with one another and for future collaboration. And when you can’t be part of a network, then it’s way more difficult. (Interview 3)

Interviewee number 3 makes clear that the problems she encountered in daily routines were even more difficult than expected. This is particularly true when access to important networks proves to be problematic or is even refused. Membership in an association is especially important since ‘it communicate[s] the values and norms of their disciplines, provides access to informal networks, and help[s] to move people along by offering useful information through unofficial channels. But this [association] was not a formal club with “girls keep out” posted on the door. Rather, membership was gained through informal, social processes of “fitting in” ’ (DeWelde and Laursen, 2011: 577–578). Non-transparent rules and social processes can significantly impede female academic careers. In order to avoid such difficulties, female academics tend to do research on marginal issues or fill obscure research gaps, at least in traditionally male-dominated fields, and eventually become experts on their special topics.

Additionally, flexibility and mobility are important factors. The analysis reveals that forming multifarious individual relationships is indispensable to obtaining career-enhancing information, to establishing contacts and finding potential research collaborators. Thus, other research in this field shows that the mobility – especially geographical mobility – of highly qualified women has been on the rise over the past years (Rüger and Ruppenthal, 2010). Mobility proves to be a central element of a successful academic career in the present study. All in all, the interviewees consider a research stay abroad not just to be important but to be fundamental for their academic progress. One of my interview partners describes the relevance of geographical mobility in academia as follows:

A research stay abroad – it’s not just important, it’s essential. … Let’s say the desired and planned career would be to obtain a professorship. Without a research stay abroad, this is not going to happen. And without a stay abroad I certainly wouldn’t have gotten the job! (Interview 3)

Stays abroad are evidently considered crucial for an academic career. As interviewee number 3 implies, higher academic positions often include international scholarly exchange between different collaborative partners. She indicates that her experience abroad has helped her to more adequately manage certain tasks in her position. Other interview partners also mention that stays abroad are indeed indispensable for leading positions within academia.

Although the requirement to be mobile is assessed as important, it is simultaneously seen as a potential obstacle for female scholars. The need to be mobile over a longer period of one’s professional life promotes gender inequalities, especially at advanced stages of a career and when caring responsibilities become prevalent. Quantitative research in this field demonstrates a positive impact of mobility for both male and female academics. Furthermore, it also clearly indicates the impeding effect that parenting has on female careers (Shauman and Xie, 1996). In this regard, the interview partners highlight the difficulties of combining mobility with family responsibilities, and my analysis confirms that this is indeed an obstacle to an academic career. Interviewee number 8 reflects on her own career:

I have been abroad several times during my career. But when I had my child … things started to change. One’s mobility and flexibility is simply limited. … That’s certainly a great disadvantage for female careers. (Interview 8)

This interviewee describes geographical mobility as crucial to an academic career. Nevertheless, she is aware of the fact that it is difficult to manage the compatibility of occupational demands and planning one’s private life. Moreover, the analysis indicates that, when there are childcare responsibilities, women are still tied down to a greater extent than men. In this regard, Shauman and Xie (1996) show that the effect of children on the probability of migration differs by gender, with women being affected more negatively than men. In her own case, this interviewee organized research experience abroad before family and childcare issues became pressing.

How do female academics overcome these obstacles in order to attain leading positions?

The second section deals with the question of which coping strategies female academics employ to overcome these obstacles in an effort to attain leading positions. In this section, I elaborate on two antithetical types of strategies for each obstacle. The first obstacle described above was that of informal encounters. In discussing informal communication structures, I concentrate on two main coping strategies that were employed by female academics in the sample. The first strategy is to combat malevolent talk by asserting oneself and by actively responding to insinuations.

Personally, my way of coping with [malevolent talk] is to react immediately. As soon as I hear something I try to rectify it. Sometimes it can be exhausting, but still I think that’s the best way to cope with this situation. (Interview 6)

This strategy calls for a strong character, and it also requires spending a significant amount of time and energy reacting to informal communication. This interviewee tries to respond immediately to various insinuations concerning her in order to prevent informal communication from getting out of hand. By employing this procedure, it becomes obvious that constant rectification may be exhausting and time-consuming.

By contrast, in employing the second strategy, female academics avoid informal contacts and try to devote less time and energy to combating insinuations and to defending themselves. As another interviewee points out, she would rather devote herself to the responsibilities of her leading position than be concerned with personal invective. She concentrates on her professional tasks and tries to deter and disarm potential ‘offenders’ through her professionalism.

I respond by working really hard. I am sure there is just fear behind all that talking and slandering. A woman in this position – that’s completely new. And men probably wouldn’t have to face these discussions at all. … But then I try to think of it as a compliment. If the only way to deal with me is to spread rumours and not even try to engage in a dialogue on a technical level, then they obviously must have confidence in my ability. And that’s what I’m going to do: an excellent job! (Interview 5)

She maintains that this slanderous talk is engendered by a natural fear of the new and of the unknown. The change in gender structures over the past years – especially in academic committees – is also described as a reform process which would require time for adjustment and familiarization. She cultivates a positive attitude in this situation and is thus able to empower herself. Consequently, by employing this strategy, female academics can change sides and may even benefit from an initially adverse situation. Interestingly, Salazar (2009) finds similar strategies and mechanisms for survival in academia in her study of coloured faculty members. One strategy consists in distancing oneself: ‘Some participants distanced themselves as a means of self-protection, to physically and/or emotionally insulate themselves from painful surroundings’ (Salazar, 2009: 188).

Both coping strategies involve the mechanism of distancing oneself from one’s social environment and not taking comments too personally. The approach is to keep a cool head and to avoid becoming over-involved emotionally, even when things become difficult. In connection with this, personalized statements or accusations are transposed from the emotional to an abstract and factual level, on which they are then negotiated. Interviewee number 10 encapsulates the situation in the following statement: ‘You simply have to develop a thick skin. You cannot let these things get to you’ (Interview 10).

The second obstacle described above was the difficult process of addressing the question of social networks. In an attempt to discuss these – in some instances strongly – male-dominated networks and their effects, I again elaborate on two contrasting coping strategies. One strategy is to build up and institutionalize female networks as a way of counteracting the exclusiveness of male networks. The idea is to establish the same advantages through exclusive access as is common within male networks:

I never wanted to be a member of these male networks. … Instead, I wanted to set up something on my own – for women. My intention was to create a place where women can exchange views, reflect on decisions and support each other without losing face. (Interview 3)

Women who adopt this strategy use the exclusion of male academics in order to overcome the disadvantages they encounter which emerge from these traditional networks. Exclusively female networks not only emphasize scholarly exchange and support for professional progress but also discussions of private issues. In this coping strategy, it seems important to establish a protective space exclusively for women. As interviewee number 3 points out, women unifying in this way somehow produces a feeling of security and solidarity within an insider group.

The opposing coping strategy is to break up the traditional male-dominated networks and set up mixed-gender networks. For interviewee 5, the relevance lies in establishing new structural routines to combat rigidified habits which, intentionally or unintentionally, encourage gender inequalities:

If I do not approve of exclusively male networks, how can I support exclusively female networks? I strongly believe that it takes both sexes in mixed-gender networks … Hence it’s about breaking up old structures. (Interview 5)

With this statement, the interviewee makes it clear that the goal of academic collaboration should not rely on mechanisms of inclusion and exclusion. By furthering mixed-gender networks, she believes that previous effects of exclusion can be mitigated. The underlying mechanism of both coping strategies seems to be the search for change, to accelerate innovation and set things in motion. The main focus is to alter the current situation of persistent gender inequality in top leading positions, one way or another. The analysis indicates the significance of ‘striving for a new direction’ and subsequently ‘establishing new structures’, seeking change, with the future generation of female academics in mind. Pursuing change appears to be the logical alternative since extant studies argue that leadership norms are less likely to promote values held by women, because women do not fit entirely within the male-centric paradigm of leadership (Parker and Welch, 2013: 338).

In this respect, one should mention interesting findings provided by Smith-Doerr (2004). She shows that women tend to be more successful (e.g. obtain supervisory positions) and enjoy improved career opportunities in network organizations than in traditional hierarchies and long-established bureaucracies. Smith-Doerr (2004) points out that network organizations do not focus on the feminization or masculinization of a field of work, but rather concentrate on output-driven and collaborative working atmospheres. Comparable tendencies can be observed in the present study, as mentioned above. Additionally, the analysis reveals a third coping strategy which essentially combines the previous two by employing either one of them in specific situations. While the importance of mixed-gender networks is highlighted for scholarly and professional progress, exclusively female networks are considered to be advantageous especially for personal exchange. In this context, female networks are explicitly attributed a mentoring role.

Networks are relevant only if they are endowed with power and resources and many of those female networks are irrelevant in this regard. Therefore, as to my job, I stick to well established networks. Nevertheless, I think that female networks make sense, in particular for the purpose of female empowerment. (Interview 1)

Within this strategy, female networks are regarded as less important for occupational progress than well-established traditional networks. According to the point of view of interviewee 1, professional and scholarly success is partially connected to authority, power and resources. In her opinion, female networks still lack the ability to promote these aspects in the same way. On the contrary, she argues in favour of female networks when it comes to elements – her example being female empowerment – that traditional male-dominated networks present to a lesser extent.

The final obstacle for successful female careers to be addressed here is the challenging compatibility of work and family life and the requirement to be geographically mobile across those realms. The time-consuming work as an academic and manager in a leading position often has multifarious impacts on different aspects of life. In order to minimize the contradiction between family and work issues, childlessness is presented as offering a promising alternative. ‘To be frank, when you have children everything becomes difficult. … Yes, a lot of women do not have children. Just like me. It’s easier’ (Interview 4). In this area, research shows that Austria has extraordinarily high levels of childlessness within the group of academic women. Initial investigations in Austria reveal that the low level of childbearing is explained by the gap between childbearing intentions and childbearing behaviour rather than free personal decision-making. This gap is due to conditions directly related to the workplace (temporary working contracts) and possibly also to less favourable partnership relations (Buber et al., 2011: 24).

In terms of simultaneously managing work–family issues and geographical mobility, I will again elaborate on two different coping strategies. The first strategy can be encapsulated by the term ‘commuting’. The women associated with this group have divided their lives into two completely independent spheres. One is dedicated to professional obligations, the other is focused on private or family issues. While academic work regularly takes place between Mondays and Fridays, family life is essentially limited to weekends. Moreover, the geographic distance between the locus of family life and the workplace is usually considerable. My interviewee describes her personal situation of commuting as follows: ‘I virtually had two lives: one filled with work during the week and another with my family on weekends’ (Interview 5).

The analysis reveals that commuting becomes even more likely when family members are deeply bound to the place of origin or women have just taken up work. In cases where children are involved, the analysis indicates that female academics do not want to disrupt well-established family practices, but instead are concerned that their children grow up in a familiar social environment. Although female academics have to sacrifice time spent with their family, this strategy seems to facilitate the compatibility of family and career.

The second strategy consists in female academics attempting to integrate family matters into daily work routines. In order to reconcile the necessity to be mobile and the wish to lead a family life, they organize their family life around occupational obligations. In my interviewee’s life, work usually comes first in view of the large number of responsibilities she has to deal with in her position. Consequently, when her job requires her to move abroad, her partner follows her.

We agreed that my husband accompanies me. … It’s easier for him to find another job elsewhere than it would be for me. In academia there are just very few offerings, especially when it comes to higher positions. So you have to take what you can get. (Interview 5)

This specific strategy seems to be employed in relationships where only one person is employed in academia. This arrangement not only requires considerable support from the non-academic partner, but also the willingness to interrupt his or her personal career, at least for a certain period of time. Women who employ the second coping strategy emphasize the advantages for children: in their opinion, stays abroad facilitate learning a foreign language and becoming acquainted with unfamiliar cultural practices.

Both strategies involve the mechanism of deliberately planning and organizing the future alternatives. In mastering mobility requirements, it is thus important to plan with some foresight and to determine the next career steps. It appears to be essential to be aware of the various options and to select those that are the most appropriate for one’s career, to manoeuvre within the scope of the different possibilities and to follow up on subsequent decisions. The interviewees generally suggest that research stays are preferable early on in one’s career in order to at least minimize the difficulties of reconciling family and career. The interviewees argue in favour of carefully planning their research stays and taking into consideration the institutional affiliations and the reputation of the university. Research stays where these factors are not taken into consideration may prove to be anything but career-enhancing.