Abstract
This article focuses on the topic of gender segregation at universities in German-speaking countries. It addresses the question how the interrelation of organizational structures and individual biographies leads to the drop-out of females during their PhD. Moreover, it contributes to the understanding of how these drop-outs are embedded in gendered organizational structures and processes. A case study approach is applied in order to gain a deeper understanding of the crucial mentor–mentee relationship at this career stage. The detailed reconstruction of narrative biographies shows how a young female researcher faces too many restrictions and too much freedom at the same time. Results revealed how the female junior is highly dependent on the male senior and that specific assignments of how and with whom to work impact her career development. At the same time, the evaluation of the junior’s work is based on the stereotypical picture of an autonomous scientist who produces excellent research results without senior interference. Findings are explained in line with the theory of trajectory curves, and demonstrate the long-term and complex process of the unplanned drop-out of a female researcher in a male-dominated environment with gendered structures and processes.
Introduction
Recently, national and international efforts that aim to attract more women to science have focused on the PhD phase. The goal of the European Bologna Process is to develop young researchers’ competencies concerning independence and excellence (European University Association, 2007). Besides the argument of providing men and women with equal opportunities, various authors argue that workforce diversity generates original research through enhanced creativity and problem solving (e.g. Ecklund et al., 2012; Harding, 2015).
Scientific career paths in German-speaking countries have historically followed a discontinuous, non-formalized selection and promotion process (cf. Engler, 2001; Fochler et al., 2015; Metz-Göckel, 2009). Young scientists have faced contradicting requirements: while their promotion is based on informal and individual support activities, the path to success is highly standardized and includes the necessity to perform better than a vast number of unknown others (Beaufaÿs, 2004; Fochler et al., 2015). Doctoral studies have been open to anyone with a university degree, but moving into science has been more of a process determined by luck and the personal ‘fit’ between a senior mentor and a junior mentee (cf. Elg and Jonnergård, 2003; Fochler et al., 2015; Fritsch, 2014). The relationship between the junior and the senior follows an obligation to perform in the field of the senior, be it research or teaching. Today, the former ‘apprenticeship-model’ (Pechar et al., 2008) has been partially replaced by doctoral programs (European University Association, 2007). They guarantee a stimulating research environment, quality measures and predefined career opportunities (Bergen Communiqué, 2005). German-speaking universities and ministries of science have developed guidelines about the promotion of young academics (BMWF, 2007). These directives highlight, for example, the need for stronger team coherence and joint publications, enhanced access to and support from senior supervisors, and the need to establish transparent and international evaluation criteria while at the same time upholding guidelines of anti-discrimination and acceptance of non-linear career paths.
While these initiatives also aim to attract more and diverse people for research and to facilitate diverse life concepts, gender segregation and steady female attrition along the career path are still visible (e.g. European Commission, 2013). Currently, women make up at least half of the employment base in universities but lose ground in above-base positions (Elg and Jonnergård, 2003; Kloot, 2004). European-wide, only 20% of the top research positions are held by women, and women remain particularly marginalized in engineering and technology, where female full professors do not exceed 7.9% (European Commission, 2013). In every step of their career, female scientists are observed to be less frequently employed in fixed-term contracts and are paid lower salaries, thus they are more often to be found in precarious working situations. It has been investigated, that women perform higher administrative and teaching work but receive less gatekeeping and promotion (Blickenstaff, 2005; Moss-Racusin et al., 2012; Van den Brink and Benschop, 2013). Further, they are under-represented in evaluation committees or other decision-making positions (Beaufaÿs, 2004; Bird, 2011; Elg and Jonnergård, 2013).
In line with the establishment of new programs, academic researchers have tried to understand why (early) female researchers are outnumbered by men at every career step and drop out of university careers more often. Reflecting on science as a full-time or life-encompassing commitment, the available literature often stresses incompatibility of work and family (Forster, 2000; Metz-Göckel, 2009; Raddon, 2002) or lower professional role confidence and self-esteem (cf. Correll, 2001; Steinpreis et al., 1999). However, individual merit has been unmasked as a myth in academia (Bagilhole and Goode, 2001; Rhoton, 2011; Wenneras and Wold, 1997). Taking a closer look at how researchers make their way through the academic career, it becomes clear that mentoring, gatekeeping, self-promotion and networking are important for success (Van den Brink and Benschop, 2013). Powerful advocates and a thriving network of personal contacts within the scientific community are considered to be crucial. In line with this, gradual hierarchical upgrades in academia are only possible when a powerful mentor assures the status of the junior, supports him or her with personal contacts and invites and nominates the junior for positions the mentor receives through his or her personal network (Baruch and Hall, 2004; Gilbert, 2007; Haas et al., 2016; Laws, 1975). However, due to gender-biased expectations, processes and structures, men and women do not find comparable career conditions and circumstances. Instead, several authors have identified these traits as more favorable for men than for women (Bagilhole and Goode, 2001; Ibarra, 1993; Van den Brink and Benschop, 2013). Aspiring to upper echelons first of all is more difficult for women as they are less often promoted. Female supervisors are scarce and male and female seniors tend to favor male juniors (Durbin, 2011; Fowler et al., 2007; Van Emmerick et al., 2006). Second, gendered organizational approaches suggest that the persisting gender segregation and structural power inequalities between males and females systematically discriminate against women, which becomes not only visible in organizational structures, but also in hierarchies, power relations and daily interactions and discourses (Ecklund et al., 2012; Gilbert, 2009). Normative concepts of attitudes, roles and practices related to what organizational members consider as socially appropriate for men and women (Ridgeway, 2009; West and Zimmermann, 1987) determine organizational processes. Through binary positioning, masculinity is regarded as a superior trait in organizations (Acker, 1990; Bird, 2011; Gherardi, 1994). Beliefs about being the ‘other’ or the ‘inferior’ then lead to specific expectations of an individual’s ability and performance (Haas et al., 2016). Female researchers in the male-dominated university environment are thus exposed to specific ‘male’ role expectations such as endurance, high mobility and a life-time commitment (Rhoton, 2011; Wilson, 2005), while at the same time, these qualifications of an ‘ideal scientist’ are believed to better match with male than female life contexts and expectations (Fritsch, 2014; Metz-Göckel, 2009; Raddon, 2002). Gatekeeping and mentoring have thus been characterized as a paternalistic style of leadership that privileges those similar to the existing norm. Although hierarchical structures and the related dependence on senior mentors and sponsors affect both, men and women, I argue that the discussed cultural and structural aspects of the gendered university organization create an accumulated disadvantage for female scientists.
In order to better understand these processes, there is a need to gain better insight into how recruiting and promotion perpetuate, change or counteract gender inequalities. The detailed analysis of the relationship between a mentor and a mentee is of special interest in this context – in particular when it comes to the hierarchical subordination of a female junior and a male senior. How salient is gender in the PhD phase and is it particularly visible in a mentoring setting with a traditional role-allocation?
In this article, the detailed reconstruction of the drop-out trajectory of Sonja B. – a physics PhD student – is used to demonstrate how young female researchers perceive and react upon the gendered structures at university. The concentration on one biographical case reconstruction (cf. Lewin, 1931; Rosenthal, 2004) allows for a detailed analysis of the rules that generated and determined the process. The holistic in-depth investigation and the fundamental understanding of one specific case (Yin, 2009) leads to the detection of those patterns that allow, hinder, perpetuate or counteract gendered inequality in the academic organization. Considering the whole account of a professional biography thus provides a comprehensive picture of how the gendered organization interrelates with drop-out decisions and how specific behavior and expectations of the patriarchal mentor–mentee relationship co-construct gendered inequalities. The aim of such case study research is thus not to prove a theory by counting the evidence, or systematically comparing different drop-out stories, but to do an in-depth investigation. Through a process-oriented ‘thick description’ (Geertz, 1973) of the drop-out phenomenon of one specific case, the results contribute to existing theories.
Methodological approach and research context
This research adopts a biographical approach. Based on the concept of shared realities and symbolic interactionism (cf. Blumer, 1969), the drop-out of women is viewed as a social phenomenon: individuals experience structural and social settings and make their decisions embedded within the social space in which they are involved. Organizational patterns and conditions thus interrelate with an individual biography.
These decision-making processes can be expatiated through biographical-narrative interviews. During narrative interviews, interviewer interference is reduced primarily to non-verbal encouragements to continue, allowing the interviewees to build their stories according to their own preferences (Rosenthal, 2004; Schütze, 2008). Biographically relevant experiences are then linked up in a temporally and thematically consistent pattern by the interviewed person and reveal the processes and transformations a person has gone through during her/his life. Open narrations allow for the reconstruction of behavioral patterns, self-explanations and reflections as well as the prevailing discourses in the organization.
This article draws on data from a study conducted in a German-speaking country between 2010 and 2013, researching biographies of women at a science and technology university (Haas et al., 2016). At this university, every fourth graduate is a woman, and at the PhD level, the percentage of female graduates is 16.2%. Although women hold around a fifth of the scientific positions, only 9% of all full professors are female (BMWF, 2011). Fifteen female researchers with diverse backgrounds regarding age, nationality, level of career stage, field of expertise, educational background and scientific field were asked to recount their (professional) life stories. They all entered a male-dominated environment, and have thus overcome gendered barriers at least once. The results of the study revealed how these women perceive their career in the context of the gendered university structures, and how they construct their professional identity (Haas et al., 2016).
The focus of this article is to concentrate on the evolution of the mentor–mentee relationship depicted in a career trajectory that results in an unplanned drop-out. The approach to present a key case allows for a holistic and process-based reconstruction of biographical narrations and has been a common method in former biographical studies (cf. Engler, 2001; Haas et al., 2016; Rosenthal, 2004; Schütze, 2003). The biographical account of Sonja B. is analyzed along the following questions: How did specific experiences and their interpretation come about? Which organizational aspects, structures and processes enabled these experiences and their interpretation? And how did the complex interplay between organizational features and interaction between the individuals finally lead to the drop-out decision? Looking at these patterns in the individual case study, more general patterns of how academia affects young female researchers’ careers can be derived (Yin, 2009).
The analysis took place using biographical case reconstruction according to Schütze (2008) and Rosenthal (2004). First, the narrative account was analyzed by systematically comparing what was told and how it was told. This step follows the idea of Rosenthal (2004) and aims to define the main thematic fields addressed by the interviewee. It is analyzed how different topics are mentioned, silenced or highlighted. In this context, different communicative schemes were distinguished and related to silences or hesitations that threw light on the dynamics of self-perception (Schütze, 2008). Second, contextual biographical data were included in order to derive hypotheses about which options Sonja B. would have had in a specific situation or at turning points in her career (Rosenthal, 2004). Third, the narrative ‘modes’ which framed the narration were considered, reflecting upon current discourses in society, the organization, and the interaction between interviewer and interviewee (Dausien, 2009; Rosenthal, 2004).
Results are depicted in relation to the German sociologist Schütze’s theory of trajectories (Schütze, 2008). Trajectories are regarded as sequential procedures that progressively minimize the individual’s options. They describe (life) processes that show an increasing discrepancy between what was originally planned and what definitely happened (Schütze, 2008). As the chain of circumstances becomes continuously more determined by external factors and/or actors, the individual perceives the situation as their destiny and feels trapped and not able to control their life any more (Schütze, 2008). The spiral of downward social and biographical experiences contains different phases. First, a (career or life) plan gets disturbed. The defense of the own position and the refusal to accept changes lead to an alleged stability again. However, uncertainty about the future grows with increased interruptions and drawbacks. Finally, severe doubts that the original plan will succeed lead to such high suffering that the only solution is to escape or drop out from the situation (Schütze, 2003, 2008).
In the following section, the biography of Sonja B. is presented in greater detail. Sonja was first promoted by a male supervisor, but later faced role encapsulation and overstraining. It will be shown in the case reconstruction that as soon as instability increases, she gradually loses her self-confidence until she finally gives up her work.
Reconstruction of Sonja’s (professional) biography
Short biographical note
Sonja grew up with a younger brother and sister in a rural area of Austria. Her parents were both teachers. As a child, Sonja spent a great deal of time with grandparents and cousins. When she was seven, her parents divorced. After attending the primary school in town, Sonja changed to a secondary school focused on natural sciences. She spent her free time with people from her hometown, and became involved in various leisure activities for children. Her connection to the countryside and her original peer group remained quite strong even during studies.
As far as her incorporation into university was concerned, she seemed to follow a predetermined career path, relating to her parents who – as teachers – might have had a strong interest in higher education for their children. The selection of physics was presented as a logical step considering her scientific interests. Although struggling with the requirements during the first years, Sonja managed to complete all the exams and received a paid position during her master’s thesis. Her supervisor asked her to stay on his team for a PhD. Over time, requirements on Sonja increased, but at the same time she did not perceive the support she needed. In the end, Sonja left university and moved to the countryside, although her project should have lasted one or two years longer.
Structure of the narration and self-presentation pattern
When Sonja was asked to give an interview about how she perceived her professional life, she was willing to meet with the interviewer, but at the same time seemed reluctant. She agreed to an interview but had to be contacted several times to set the date and was concerned about anonymity issues. Once she sat down and started to talk, she narrated fluently, in a highly reflective mode. Additionally she appeared to be conscientious, trying to perform the interview in a manner that would best fit the research.
The first part of her narration was shaped by the story of how her former male supervisor made her feel insecure about her scientific competence. She presented it in a straightforward manner and focused on her exit from university, which took place one and a half years before the interview. The main thematic field was oriented towards this experience. The second thematic field and also the focus of the second part of her narration were related to the effect of the gender imbalance at the university and her institute. Reflecting on male and female life contexts and how masculinity determines the scientific profession, Sonja addressed the alleged interests of the interviewer, but at the same time it was apparent that she had already reflected on this issue and used it as an explanation for her drop-out. The reconstruction of her narration revealed that these two thematic fields were used to underline her self-presentation pattern as a victim of circumstances. In the course of her narration she embedded her individual story in the common narrative that it is hard for women to succeed in a technical environment. Her voice seemed depressed during the interview, and she was still looking for explanations, partly blaming her supervisor but also considering her own fault for her failure.
Case reconstruction
The master’s thesis marks an entry point to Sonja’s scientific career. Shortly after talking to a recommended (male) supervisor, she begins to work, which points to a rather informal selection process. Sonja refers positively to the open and cooperative management style of the senior, highlighting that the two of them got along quite well. For his master’s and PhD candidates, the supervisor supports conference visits, summer school and internships abroad.
At the end of studies, I did a semester abroad in [city]. This was not really a good time, because I’d already started with my master’s thesis and … it wasn’t the way I had planned it. It was actually planned, that I finalize the master’s thesis and only have a few classes left in [city]. But after two months I was assigned to another subject, because the first one turned out to be a deadlock and therefore it was not so easy to fulfill it in time, because physics is-, there are quite a lot of practical things to do, before you can start writing. (I 1, p. 4, 10–12)
Sonja and her supervisor agreed on an internship abroad at the very end of the master’s thesis. Sonja intends to submit her thesis afterwards. However, her plans have to be changed as she is ‘assigned to another subject’ (p. 4, 11). Although she mentions that she hadn’t planned it like this, she seems to easily accept the shift. Only later in the interview, she recounts that it was not due to her own preferences but rather to an optimal distribution of projects and tasks within the research team. Based on this delay, Sonja is not able to finish the thesis abroad, but instead must complete lab work upon her return.
The supervisor offers her a PhD position during this phase. This happens when she has not completed her master’s thesis yet. On the one hand, we learn that Sonja receives encouraging support here, as the supervisor wants to hire her for further projects. On the other hand, the high informality of this step becomes visible: there is no formal application procedure; instead, the supervisor is free to offer a position at will. Accepting the offer has various consequences: Sonja rejects her original plans to move back to the countryside after her studies, which would also have implied starting a family with her long-term partner. Further, the management of daily research activities such as finalizing her master’s thesis and starting new trial runs for the PhD are expected to be demanding.
Notes on the trajectory process
Already in this very first phase of Sonja’s scientific career, the negative potential for a trajectory process is visible: Sonja’s professional career plans are ‘disturbed’ as the offer for a PhD thesis – although she had not yet finished her master’s – does not follow a traditional career path, where one step is completed before another begins. The demanding research environment and the high expectations of her supervisor become visible. Why did she accept the offer although she already had other plans? The reconstruction demonstrated that despite the expected workload and potentially precarious contract situation, she wanted to seize the opportunity to write a PhD in her field of interest.
The feedback on the first version of her master’s thesis is negative. Reflecting on the fact that she didn’t have an idea of ‘what a master’s thesis should look like’ (I 1, p. 5, 2–3) and that ‘nobody told [her]’ (I 1, p. 5, 4), Sonja shows that she was feeling the strain. While completely reworking the thesis, she is looking for a way to understand why the first draft of her master’s thesis turned out so poor, particularly in contrast to the former positive feedback and the job offer she has received.
… and then he, so to speak, put pressure on me by saying, ‘yes, actually we’d already needed new things’ and he had counted on me a lot earlier, on the fact that I would have started working on them. And I then said, in the middle of May, ‘okay, I will not apply for the master’s exam now, but rather in autumn, and I will start working on the PhD project right now’. (I 1, p. 5, 21–25)
The fact that she could not make the next submission deadline is presented as an individually driven, rational decision to decrease the workload and to meet the requirements for results on the new project. Interestingly, it is again an informal request, which is at the same time quite invasive: Sonja is not expected to work on her own career and bring her studies to an end, but rather she is expected to deliver results for the (supervisor’s) research project. The account of the supervisor’s demand further shows that Sonja feels obliged to fulfill the contract, even if it means rejecting her own plans. She postpones the submission of her master’s thesis and spends the following months in the lab once again, trying to build on the experiments of the master’s thesis and gaining new insights for a joint publication. Although Sonja says that she would not have dared to publish the preliminary results, she relies on the seniority and competence of her supervisor, abandons her doubts and agrees to publish the findings.
Notes on the trajectory process
The next step in the trajectory process therefore is represented by the rejection of her master’s thesis. Sonja is now confronted with contradicting requirements: she is caught between the need to fulfill her supervisor’s expectations regarding when and what to deliver, while at the same time not being able to fulfill the picture of a self-organized, genius, ideal scientist who would know how to do that (Fritsch, 2014; Knights and Richards, 2003; Metz-Göckel, 2009). Struggling between the need to finalize the document in order to formally graduate from the university, and the (supervisor’s) requirements to provide new – and suitable – results, Sonja works hard trying to gain better results and to reach stability regarding her career plans.
During her PhD work, her boyfriend proposes, and they begin to plan a life together. At this time, Sonja has finally completed her master’s studies. She works self-determinedly and freely on her new experiments, but still lacks support from the supervisor with the analysis and interpretation of her data. It is, however, also at this time that the preliminary results referred to in Sonja’s master’s thesis prove to be false. Further experiments do not support the former hypotheses, and the supervisor has to abandon the original ideas of this research.
I didn’t have the feeling that he really wanted to know what went wrong, he didn’t care at all, as long as he somehow got an excuse for it. I tried to just write it down, what could have been, why it is like that, and I handed him two pages. He said he couldn’t talk to me about the content because there were so many spelling mistakes that he couldn’t concentrate on the content. (I 1, p. 12, 9–16)
While the professor has to explain himself to a third party with who he is cooperating and manages the situation successfully, Sonja still perceives pressure to further investigate the causes. She seems confused about the supervisor’s attitude and his lack of interest. Her attempts to learn from the mistakes are deemed unnecessary and insufficient and her document is rejected for formal aspects.
And principally, for me, it was always too much, ‘yes we want something to be the result, and the results kind of indicate that-’, well for me there was far too much interpretation in the direction where it should be, where we wanted it to be. And I mean, I realized that …, probably, I reacted too sensitively, because others do that as well, but nevertheless, it was not an attitude, that I approved of. I would have had other expectations in science and things like that. (I 1, p. 9, 17–24)
Sonja seems disappointed, but while she envisions science to be something truthful and accurate, she starts justifying herself and questioning whether she is being ‘too sensitive’ and whether the idea to present suitable results might belong to the scientific profession anyhow as her colleagues ‘do that as well’ (I 1, p. 9, 23).
Under pressure to deliver results, Sonja notices that there is another senior scientist at the university who is involved in comparable research projects.
… but I thought, well, the other professor, he provides much more guidance. I could go and ask him, and he would just explain things to me, which would help me and our [supervisor] lets the people work on different areas, but doesn’t get involved with it in greater detail. This means, somehow, I already felt left alone and, well, I could just go there, ask him, the other supervisor, but well I am not allowed to. We are almost not allowed to talk to each other. (I 1, p. 11, 14–21)
Looking for support she considers the ‘other’ professor as an additional mentoring option, but hesitates to make contact because of a doctrinal dispute between her supervisor and him. Her hesitation is based on informal rules of conduct about whom to contact as a junior researcher. Although there is no ‘official’ reason not to address another senior researcher, Sonja sees no way to approach this person without the ‘permission’ of her supervisor. Nevertheless and without knowing about the concrete mentoring situation with his PhD students, she conceptualizes this professor to be the opposite of her own supervisor and someone who actually would help her.
Notes on the trajectory process
Although having reached an alleged stability, Sonja increasingly believes that she will be unable to succeed without support. While the junior–senior relationship has worked well in the context of task assignments, it lacks instruction and the refusal of support is further combined with restrictions to seek help elsewhere. When the situation worsens, and her attempts to find reasons for poor scientific results are rejected, Sonja’s self-confidence wanes. During this phase of the trajectory curve, she feels trapped but also gets critical about her supervisor for the first time and starts blaming him for where she stands in her career. While she prepares abstracts for conferences and applies for academic meetings, she nevertheless experiences a loss in her ability to drive her professional career. Other studies show that female doctoral students suffer from the ‘impostor syndrome’ (cf. Jöstl et al., 2012) more than their male colleagues in such a situation: without appropriate support and encouragement – and independently of their scientific competence and results – female scientists start to disregard the own competencies and capabilities. In Sonja’s case, this is additionally driven by the fact that she works in an isolated environment. She never mentions colleagues or people with whom she works; her professional experiences are solely determined by interaction with the supervisor. Conventionally, scientific teams in physics often share lab work and/or publish joint articles. Sonja – working on a specific industry project – has no network or peer group, which leads to a low social identification with her workplace; without people who share the same concerns, she cannot locate herself in the professional environment (Ashfort and Mael, 1989; Gherardi, 1994).
And then the whole thing became more and more oppressive. And I had the feeling, ‘I won’t be satisfied with this PhD thesis’. (I 1, p. 11, 24–26)
After one and a half years of working without any break, she says that the situation became even more difficult. As a result, she feels bad and unsure of whether or not her PhD thesis will be a success. When her supervisor rejects an invitation to a private celebration, Sonja interprets their relationship to be disrupted on both a professional and a personal level. Before this event, she had pointed out several times the amicable work environment in her research group.
And at the end of January I really wanted to leave it behind and-, and during the conversation with him [the supervisor] somehow, of course, it became the end of February, because I obviously wasn’t steadfast, and-, well I then in fact did things and worked for the work group the whole time. (I 1, p. 15, 26–30)
Sonja decides to leave the university but feels obliged to fulfill the contract and to continue it as long as the professor desires. In the interview, she reflects on that point and categorizes herself as not being ‘steadfast’ (I 1, p. 15, 28) enough.
Notes on the trajectory process
The decision for the exit reflects a turning point in Sonja’s biography and the trajectory process. Regarding herself as a victim and only focusing on negative aspects of the scientific career, she notices that she has to free herself from the system. Nevertheless, she cannot complete the drop-out as she intends. Instead, she accepts the prolongation of her contract for a few weeks to appease her supervisor and thus prolongs their hierarchical relationship.
Sonja and her husband start looking for jobs around their hometowns. Based on her experience at the university, Sonja doubts that any scientific or technical career would be manageable for her. Her husband gets a job first. In the interview she tries to make a joke and says that she just ‘lost the game’ (I 1, p. 17, 5). In contrast to this statement, living closer to her family would have perhaps been better for her, especially in a situation where she had just been uprooted from her professional path. It seems that she has adopted a rather passive attitude now, neither trusting herself nor her professional competence. Thus, she follows her partner and accepts a job offer as a research assistant in a precarious position at an industrial enterprise. Sonja has looked for a job that fits with these decisions about herself, and has accepted an industry position near her new hometown.
In the meantime, I was officially employed as the personal assistant of the research director, and actually I carried out a lot of things for the department I work for now. So I didn’t perform those things for which I was employed. I did more administrative work than I would have done if I had been employed appropriately, so it was not project-based administrative work. (I 1, p. 18, 12–18)
Sonja finally starts a job below her qualifications. Although the position is principally in line with her (physics) studies, it encompasses various administrative tasks. Furthermore, it is based on a precarious contract that only provides job security for several months. Being aware of the fact that she could perform a higher position, Sonja nevertheless refers to the economic crisis during this time and says that it did not allow for much of a choice between job offers. During the last part of the trajectory curve, Sonja frees herself from a situation of dependence at the university. By following her partner and his current professional path, she, however, fulfills traditional role expectations.
Findings and discussion
Through the reconstruction we can see how Sonja’s attitude, reflection and resulting actions reinforce her suffering and how this interrelates with organizational mechanisms that direct and perpetuate the trajectory process. In the following, the most salient aspects of the organization – that of course interrelate with each other – are presented:
Hierarchy and power structures: The existing hierarchy between the male supervisor and the young female researcher allows for different steps in the trajectory process. First, not only the supervisor’s ‘definition’ of the research area and project, but also the idea to ‘move’ Sonja from one topic to another reflects more of an employer–employee relationship than a self-determined research environment for young scientists. The offer of a PhD contract before graduation might (also) be driven by the fact that a master’s student means less payroll costs than a PhD student. The supervisor hires someone who has already worked for him and who has already accepted a switch from one project to another. Through these experiences the impression created is that he can use her according to his needs. Additionally, the exclusiveness of the mentor–mentee relationship prevents Sonja from contacting another supervisor. We can assume that there was no ‘written’ rule about it, but nevertheless she is ‘allocated’ to a specific supervisor who is considered to be the responsible one.
The ideal scientist: The normative expectations of an academic genius who develops his/her research and celebrates his/her discoveries without instructions or support (cf. Acker, 1990; Fritsch, 2014; Knights and Richards, 2003) have been depicted in this case study as well: Sonja is expected to deliver the ‘right’ results in a timely manner and to deliver them without the assistance of others. In the end she dares not ask for help, as this would be in direct conflict with the image of a self-organized, able researcher. She tries to adapt to the existing inherent norms of how young academics should behave, showing dedication and perseverance as well as a high tolerance of frustration (Beaufaÿs, 2004). However, this picture of the ideal scientist is contradicted here with the more traditional picture of an employee, being assigned to specific tasks and work groups. Sonja finds herself caught between freedom (being left alone to do research) and restriction (being assigned to specific work groups regardless of her opinion on the matter).
Informality: Although the hiring of Sonja is the result of a search for manpower, the informality of this step and the related bypassing of formal (career) criteria lead to her promotion. We do not know whether Sonja is offered a PhD paid contract, if she accepts a lower income throughout the runtime of the project, or if there is an agreement to improve her contract after she has fulfilled the master’s thesis. The fact remains that Sonja cannot be employed with the better paid PhD contract as long as she has not formally graduated from the university. Thus, this informality leads to her promotion, but also simultaneously impedes and slows down Sonja’s career. Because of the multiple requests from her mentor and the high pressure, she struggles.
Dependence and a paternalistic notion: On the one hand, Sonja faces devaluation of her work, which becomes for example visible by the way in which the supervisor judges her concern about what went wrong with the first results. Sonja is not (yet) considered to be a ‘real’ member of the scientific community and thus not allowed to question the senior scientist or his decisions. This is in line with other studies that illustrated how scientists in German-speaking countries are only conceptualized as full academic members when they hold a full professorship (Beaufaÿs, 2004; Engler, 2001). On the other hand, her commitment to the supervisor is noticeable in the final phase of her work: although facing criticism, she agrees to continue working on the project for some additional weeks. This is related to the support she received with respect to summer schools or conference visits, but also has to do with their amicable interaction. The high informality of their relationship leads to an alleged cancellation of hierarchies and reflects one of the reasons why an exit from university is difficult for Sonja; it marks the end of a relationship that was professional and personal.
The organizational features that enabled Sonja’s experiences exhibit specific gendered aspects. At the beginning, Sonja is informally offered a PhD contract. Whether women benefit or suffer from informal promotion activities is a controversial topic of discussion in the literature. On the one hand, networks and informal ties are more open than traditional hierarchies enabling minority members to participate more easily (Durbin, 2011; Gilbert, 2009). On the other hand, researchers found that women profit less from network activities than men, as powerful networks are believed to further homophile ties (Van den Brink and Benschop, 2013; Van Emmerick et al., 2006). Sonja knows that women have fewer career alternatives then men in academia, as reflected, for example, in the steady attrition of females along the career path. She thus takes the chance, but shortly after, is being left alone. The lack of support for women in academia has been discussed in various studies and is mostly related to the preference for homophile ties (Ibarra, 1993; Van den Brink and Benschop, 2013). This means that, first of all, men more often address men for their informal networks. This preference for similar mentees is for example explained with notions of ‘trust’: men trust men more often (Kanter, 1977; Van den Brink and Benschop, 2013). When women are less often promoted, they are observed to progress more slowly than their male colleagues. Consequentially, the lack of support or a perception of women as successful scientists creates a continuous disadvantage for them. Even if women (have to) prove that they are worthy of promotion, the daily interactions between male supervisors and female juniors are subject to a gendered bias. Research further revealed that female mentors are considered to offer more social support and coaching in terms of career development than male ones (Fowler et al., 2007). Sonja is allocated to a specific, single project, while other (male) colleagues work in teams. Trying to prove herself, Sonja fails to fulfill the (gendered) notions of the ideal scientist, following a specific picture of an autonomous genius who produces excellent research results without senior interference. This picture is hard to erase, particularly as there is no other (female) role model in place who would possibly contradict it or show alternative patterns of behaviour. Empirical research shows that especially for young career-minded women, the existence of female role models is important as they use both senior women and men as role models for their professional self-development (Singh et al., 2006). While Sonja would need more support and guidance to do her own research, she, controversially, is assigned to projects and tasks according to her supervisor’s needs. Even the type of work she is appointed for can be conceptualized as administrative project work that the supervisor needs for the fulfillment of his own career goals. The job situation of a female junior working for a male senior is to be found in many professions and further perpetuates power inequality and a hierarchical order that discriminates women through related role expectations (cf. Kloot, 2004; Wetterer, 2002). Power demonstrations in the case study take on greater significance over time and also include ignoring Sonja’s concerns about the project or rejecting private invitations. In the end, she faces role encapsulation, isolation and performance pressures at the same time. This is highly related to token theory (Kanter, 1977), and the theory of how minority members are treated in an organization: the sequential procedure of downward experiences, depicted in the trajectory curve, shows how existing structures permit high dependence and the feeling of being inadequate. While Sonja tried to cope with the situation with endurance and autonomy – trying to keep up the image of the ideal scientist – in the first place, she finally reacts with an exit from the university, dropping back on well-established parts of her biography such as family and the countryside. Also earlier studies found that women either have to settle for ‘low-ceiling’ or marginalized careers, or exit the organization in order to cope with token dynamics (Haas et al., 2016; Kanter, 1977; Laws, 1975; Rhoton, 2011; Wilson, 2005).
The findings also contribute to the (gendered) co-construction of science (Ecklund et al., 2012): Sonja started her career in physics because of her declared interest in the topic. Although it did not seem easy in the beginning, she had no doubt that she could make it to the end. Then, when she became involved with the master’s and later PhD thesis, this self-confidence eroded but she did not ask for help or support. Indeed, she would have had the option to ask for more support from her supervisor or other people, or to switch her project to another professor. Instead, she accepts the hierarchical structures and restrictions as givens and regards the power distribution and the hierarchy as part of her job. She also accepts precarious contracts during her university career and later. Building upon her sense of ‘fault’ when failing, she perpetuates the picture of an ideal scientist by not allowing for mistakes or failure, even in the very early phases of a scientific career.
Conclusion and outlook
The objective of the work described in this article was to investigate drop-outs of women from scientific careers and to gain a deeper understanding of the mentor–mentee relationship in this context.
From the case study, it could be extrapolated how hierarchical power structures systematically disadvantage juniors in academic organizations. It has been implied that established power structures and informality result in a strong dependence on a senior’s benevolence. Applying the concept of trajectory curves revealed (1) how hierarchical structures and biographical experiences intersect with gendered aspects of the organizations and (2) how this interrelation leads to a powerful exclusion mechanism for female juniors.
We can assume that female scientists are affected by the identified structural aspects and the resulting gender inequality at comparable, male-dominated university settings. Investigating a single case frequently leads to the criticism that the results of only one case study are not applicable to other settings or that the individual perspective of the interviewees may be regarded as biasing results. Indeed, the insights gained do not constitute a sole answer to a social phenomenon, but instead we glean an in-depth description of the complexity of the mentor–mentee relationship that will be observed in similar cases with similar structures and processes in place. However, coping strategies of individual women might be different according to their individual biographically relevant experiences. Further, the approach lacks the advantages of long-term ethnographic fieldwork or comparability. In order to address these concerns, and to further investigate the relevance of the mentor–mentee relationship in the early career phase of scientists, future research should include biographical accounts of men and women during the PhD phase. Additionally, incorporating ethnographic approaches can reinforce the process-based view on careers and combine the existing research with a reconstructive view on the way the mentor–mentee relationship is performed in daily interaction.
As far as practical implications are concerned, the case study illustrates the need to establish new working cultures facilitating the promotion of young scientists in order to erode informality and dependence. Establishing excellent work cultures which will encourage young researchers to pursue their own ideas and innovations requires the alignment of recruiting strategies with the potentials of young researchers. For example, the establishment of regularly changing and gender-balanced recruiting boards are believed to lead to higher heterogeneity in research teams. This will nourish the development of research activities independently from existing topics pursued by current staff. Finally, young researchers (men and women) require mentoring and encouragement in order to become innovative and develop their individual research ideas – especially in an internationalized research environment.
Footnotes
Acknowledgements
Several people contributed to my work with critical comments and fruitful discussions. The first interview with Sonja B. was conducted by Christina Keinert-Kisin and was part of a larger study under the responsibility of Sabine T Koeszegi. I would like to thank them both for their support and discussions during the research process. I would especially like to thank Eva Zedlacher for joint interpretation, proof-reading and countless discussions about my research. Further, I wish to thank all participants of the research group at the Center of Methods for Social Sciences and Gabriele Rosenthal for their helpful hints during joint interpretation sessions. In 2010, I participated in a workshop with Gerhard Riemann who provided me with helpful feedback on this work which further developed my understanding of Schütze’s trajectories. I also thank Maria Pohn-Lauggas, Christine Geserick, Tobias Buchner and Rosa Brandhorst for their valuable feedback and suggestions on the various versions of this article. A big thank you goes to Jayne Popovic for proof-reading and help with the translation of the interview excerpts.
Funding
This research is funded by the Hertha Firnberg Program of the Austrian Science Fund (project number T556-G17).