Abstract
Science, engineering and technology (SET) are still male-dominated fields, and thus all over Europe much effort is expended on activities which, it is hoped, will lead to a sustainable gender balance. Scholarly work has frequently focused on the topic of how to motivate women to enter SET fields or to choose a corresponding education. In contrast to this one-sided approach, recent scholarly contributions have begun to emphasize the vital role of gendered structures and indirect exclusion mechanisms of technological institutions and their professional self-understandings which discourage women from entering or staying in SET organizations. In particular, taken-for-granted knowledge as a mechanism for maintaining specific norms and values is considered a primary hindrance towards more inclusive and less oppressive organizational cultures. Since this taken-for-granted knowledge is often implicit, a primary goal of research can be said to make the invisible visible. Thus this article presents selected empirical results of a research project which makes use of an investigative tool called mind-scripting. Here the aim is to identify the main barriers, in terms of unquestioned taken-for granted knowledge, currently hindering an open and critical review of gendered structures and gender codes in the SET field, or in organizations in general, particularly with respect to professional norms.
Introduction
The fields of science, engineering and technology (SET) still suffer from low rates of participation by female students and professionals. As a consequence, much effort has been expended on motivating women to choose a career in SET. Nevertheless, statistics indicate a lack of sustainable change over the past years so that the number of female experts in SET organizations remains low (see Zahidi and Ibarra, 2010). Furthermore, those women who choose SET education and an associated profession are more likely than their male colleagues to leave their jobs after a few years. Hanappi-Egger (2011) has identified several reasons why female experts abandon careers in SET organizations: besides explicit and implicit sexism at the workplace, poor working conditions were cited in a case study as a primary motivation to quit a position, in particular with respect to an unsatisfactory work–life balance. It is important to note that the women investigated in the case study not only left the specific organizations in question, but simultaneously the entire branch of science, engineering and technology. Thus the female experts apparently expected to encounter similar conditions in other SET organizations. These examples indicate that gender balance will not be achieved simply by encouraging more women to enter SET professions; at the same time it is necessary to foster a greater awareness of the gendered organizational cultures in these occupations. Women leaving the profession not only waste their own investment in their professional education, but are also a loss for society in terms of innovation capacities and diversity. The fields of science, engineering and technology are in need of alternative perspectives in order to increase the quality of these systems (see also Allhutter and Hanappi-Egger, 2006). Thus, there is a societal interest in easing the path of highly educated women into these fields, and ensuring that they stay.
The examples mentioned reveal as overly simplistic the assumption that increasing the numbers of women in SET fields will effect a transformation of the organizational structure. It is a rather narrow view to believe that women must change and adapt to meet the norm settings of science, engineering and technology (see Cockburn, 1991; Henwood, 2000; Rommes, 2002; Wajcman, 2004). In contrast to this difference-oriented approach, recent scholarly contributions have emphasized the role of gendered structures, indirect exclusion mechanisms and professional self-understandings held by technological institutions (see Acker, 1992; Mills, 1992). However, researchers face a considerable methodological challenge when attempting to investigate how gender codes are created by specific practices and processes of ‘doing gender’, and how these function as barriers.
This article presents an innovative empirical study recently conducted at an Austrian higher education institution, which is committed to a gender-inclusive strategy. A deconstructive and discourse-analytical method called mind-scripting has been applied in order to reveal the indirect and taken-for-granted value systems. Based on the assumption that there exist hidden gender codes functioning as selection criteria and which lead to organizational exclusion as well as to self-exclusion, the members of a strategy group were asked (anonymously and according to the rules of mind-scripting) to recall memories on a specific topic identified through the research project. In the case presented here the topic of the mind-scripting session was selected by the representatives of the higher education institution, namely: ‘The last time I discussed the issue of a women’s quota’. The mind-scripts, i.e. the texts written by the participants, are then used to identify collective constructions on professional self-understanding, as well as organizational settings which determine these self-concepts. The results of the case study confirm that there exists, on the one hand, a strict and highly ‘masculine’ organizational culture couched in terms of objectivity, facts, logic and an avoidance of gender-related attributes. These terms are used to describe the professional understanding of an engineer. On the other hand, a persistent dual gender concept is adopted when it comes to the attributes of women working in SET areas. These texts are used here to identify the main barriers which prevent an open and critical reflection of gendered structures and gender codes in the fields of science, technology and engineering, or in organizations in general. We see that professional codes act to mask gender codes, thereby maintaining the ‘male-streaming’ of professional self-constructions. Thus, the aim of the article is to contribute to the empirical study of ‘doing gender’ by making visible taken-for-granted knowledge which is currently invisible. To begin, the theoretical framing of habitus construction and its gender dimensions are discussed, before turning to a presentation of the method of mind-scripting as well as the case study. The article closes by linking the empirical results to the theoretical framework, and offers some suggestions for further research and a presentation of limitations.
Gender codes as gate-keepers in organizations
Today it is widely accepted that gender topics cannot be simplistically reduced to the question of ‘being a man’ or ‘being a woman’ in the strict biological sense. In social interactions the basic and omnipresent dichotomy is not sex, but gender categorization, associated with the process of gender attribution.
From the perspective of organizational studies, organizations are seen as gendered spaces in which gender phenomena play a crucial role. As Kanter (1977) has previously pointed out, a correlation exists between gender and the question of power as expressed in a given value system; this reveals the existing organizational culture with respect to masculinity and femininity. Generally, so-called ‘masculine’ values (such as being competitive, rational, etc.) are evaluated more positively than ‘feminine’ values (such as being cooperative, intuitive, etc.). Mills (1992) has pointed out that it is more authentic for men to match those attributions than for women. Acker (1990, 1992) and Gherardi (1995) have argued that organizational practices such as the division of labour, underlying gender codes, symbols and metaphors (such as pictures, language or dress codes), as well as interactions and self-identification, are constituent elements which produce and reproduce gender relations in organizations (see also Calás and Smircich, 2009; Knapp and Wetterer, 2002; West and Zimmerman, 1987).
Hanappi-Egger (2011) refers to the social theory of Bourdieu (1985a) when discussing the topic of gender in organizations. This theory argues that acceptance to the so-called ‘social field’ depends on the entrance conditions as well as on behavioural codes, called ‘habitus’. The habitus of a social field is specified by those owning power, and serves to regulate the selection of members. Habitus can be defined as ‘a set of objective power relations which impose themselves on all who enter the field and which are irreducible to the intentions of the individual agents or even to the direct interactions among agents’ (Bourdieu 1985b: 196).
Turning to ‘organizations-as-fields’ (see also Emirbayer and Johnson, 2007), these concepts make clear that any individual’s capability in organizations is strongly shaped by the given organizational structure and vice versa (see also Giddens, 1984). Einspahr (2010: 5) defines structure as ‘a set of socially constructed frameworks, patterns, and material conditions that frame our collective lives and that can be understood only in relation to “agency” ’.
From an organizational standpoint, it can be noted that professional self-constructions (the necessary habitus) are specified at the societal level, with their reproduction delegated to institutions alongside other factors such as symbols and myths, for example. Habitual characteristics are thus not only learnt from specific social environments, such as families or cultures, but are also embedded in formal educational programmes and acquired through on-the-job learning within organizations. These professional self-understandings are salient in organizational structures, often internalized by organizational members and thus represent taken-for-granted knowledge. Such knowledge is omnipresent and unquestioned, and thus has a subtle yet powerful impact on organizational practices.
When considering SET organizations as social fields, it is important to recognize that science, engineering and technology are strongly connoted with masculinity, especially when we take a historical perspective (see Vaughan, 2008, for a discussion on these issues within NASA; see also Lie, 1995). Hence, the habitus is strongly defined in terms of masculinity constructions (Faulkner, 2007; Kvande, 1999; Margolis and Fisher, 2003). Women entering such fields share many attributes with male colleagues, formulated in terms of habitual characteristics and self-constructions arising from professional codes. Nevertheless, due to their sex, they remain ‘outsiders within’ (Allen and Kitch, 1998: 285). Provoked by the feeling that they do not belong (see Faulkner, 2009), women develop a variety of coping strategies, ranging from undoing gender (see Powell and Butterfield, 2003) to the extreme step of abandoning their chosen profession (Hanappi-Egger, 2012).
Bourdieu (1990, 1993) has highlighted the mutual dependency of structure and agency (in his terminology: field and habitus). This feature serves to strengthen specific power relations, as the embedded individuals reproduce and contribute to the maintenance of structures by daily practices, which in turn are determined by structural factors: ‘Social structures and cognitive structures are recursively and structurally linked, and the correspondence that obtains between them provides one of the most solid props of social domination’ (Bourdieu and Wacquant, 1992: 14).
With respect to gender, this means that organizations are defined by gendered structures and associated gender codes, which serve as ‘gate-keepers’ to the social field by specifying the internal habitus. The taken-for granted habitus therefore represents dominating organizational values and norms, and thus subtle exclusion mechanisms. This article investigates such silent and invisible organizational habitus by presenting an empirical study carried out at an Austrian higher education institution of engineering, in which an innovative method called mind-scripting is employed for analysis. This method provides valuable information regarding hidden scripts and taken-for-granted knowledge, information which is accessed in social interactions. If one remembers that, as Gheradi (1995) has pointed out, ‘doing gender’ is difficult to study due to inherent ambivalences and contradictions, then mind-scripting offers a useful technique by revealing and thus exposing to critical reflection subtle norms and values, as well as ambivalences, in gendered organizations. It will be shown that these insights are rich sources when studying complex gender topics in organizations. Based on the idea of structural determinism, it is assumed that women entering the field of science, engineering and technology share the habitus of the social field (i.e. the specific SET organization). The subtle gendered code of conduct serves as a structural framework for organizational members to ‘do gender’ and thus maintain specific power relations. Among others, Britton (2000) has pointed out that the theory of ‘doing gender’ remains empirically underdeveloped, and thus this article hopes to contribute to a better empirically informed understanding of how gendered structures are subtly maintained.
Empirical study: Mind-scripting at a higher education institution of technology
An ongoing research project at the Vienna University of Economics is investigating the gender neutrality or gender blindness of SET organizations by focusing on the indirect ways in which gender is done. Within the auspices of this project, researchers are also monitoring the implementation of a gender and diversity strategy at an Austrian higher education institution of technology. The research results presented in this article refer to a small module in the research project called ‘mind-scripting’, conducted by the author in July 2010 with members of the organization’s strategy group. This group was founded by the administrators of the institution to try to increase the traditionally low female participation rate within faculty staff as well as the student body. The members of the strategy group were invited to participate in the mind-scripting session by the author, an offer which was accepted by everyone. Before going into the details of the case study, a general introduction to the method of mind-scripting is given.
Mind scripting: Accessing hidden gender scripts
The method of mind-scripting is based on the concept of ‘memory work’, which itself was developed by the German social scientist Frigga Haug (1990). Memory work (and thus also mind-scripting) is a discourse-analytical and linguistic method of deconstruction, which enables a participating group to deconstruct and reflect on how subjects appropriate and reproduce social constructions (see Allhutter and Hanappi-Egger, 2006).
With respect to social research, mind-scripting is therefore a method of analysing implicit assumptions and taken-for-granted knowledge accessed in social interactions, such as bargaining (Hanappi-Egger and Kauer, 2010). It is a useful tool to bring hidden social a priori assumptions to light, while offering insights into specific sense-making processes and social scripts/discourses. While memory work in its original conceptualization focuses on everyday knowledge and the influence of previous experiences in real-life situations, mind-scripting was specially developed with a view to examining organizational settings and business contexts.
The basic idea of mind-scripting is to bring to light previous experiences and associated memories which people access as narratives when they wish to make sense of social interactions. These memories are part of the subject’s mental constitution, and therefore affect the ways in which individuals act in the present. Memories are not simply stored; they are selected, their meaning is adjusted and they are reconstructed. In order to access these memories, the method of mind-scripting requires subjects to write down a memory related to a specific topic. By deconstructing and comparing these written texts, which are read as contextual, selective and temporal representations of the author, it is possible to reveal hidden taken-for-granted knowledge and sense-making processes. Although the individual subject naturally wishes to tell coherent stories regarding him/herself, deconstruction reveals underlying inconsistencies in the form of contradictions, blind spots and illogical thinking, as well as links and attributions assumed to be ‘natural’.
It is assumed that these constructions are not only shaped individually, but also shared and negotiated collectively. The deconstruction session, in which researcher and subjects have equal parts to play, allows for intensive discussion of the texts, while reducing the danger of reading too much ‘between the lines’, or trying to draw a psychological profile of the author. There is also the additional benefit that if an author has the feeling that his/her text is inexactly or incorrectly ‘read, he/she can intervene without necessarily revealing their identity. The dynamic of the deconstruction session plays a crucial part in the whole process, since the topics raised and the intensity of the group dynamics indicate the degree of relevance of certain recurring themes.
Although a researcher guides the initial deconstruction sessions, the method is easily learnt and with some experience can be carried out by every participant.
The mind-scripting approach also fits well with Pierre Bourdieu’s basic understanding of doing research. According to his concept of reflexivity, researchers should question their own position and all the assumptions underlying the research (see also Bourdieu and Wacquant, 1992). This is easily realized in the research settings required by mind-scripting.
How is mind-scripting applied?
Generally speaking, mind-scripting requires a group of about 10 people who share a memory, some kind a concrete experience (which could be, for example, a bargaining situation). The participants are asked to write a brief text of about half a page in the third person concerning the chosen topic. Adopting the s/he form ensures anonymity, while allowing the participants to distance themselves from their own narratives in the deconstruction session, and thus concentrate on the text without close regard to themselves. The resulting ‘mind-scripts’ are understood as contextual, selective and temporal representations of the authors.
These texts are anonymously collected and then deconstructed collectively.
Deconstructing a text means taking it apart, separating content and formal aspects, with the focus on how a person constructs him/herself in the described situation, and how concepts relating to the specific development context are constructed within the text. The group work is guided by a few questions which can be drawn from the topics identified in the texts as important. Such questions can be:
How does the author present her/himself?
Which additional persons are mentioned in the text and how are they presented?
Which writing style is used?
Are there any contradictions, interruptions or assumptions of causality?
Which emotions are described?
Can any latent stereotypes be identified?
How does the author overcome contradictions and logical inconsistencies?
It is possible to find clear traces in the texts of the ways in which actors combine their professional know-how with practical ways of problem-solving. This is, of course, influenced by social factors such as gender discourses (see also Allhutter, 2011).
In order to obtain results on collectively shared processes of sense-making, the texts are deconstructed and then the resulting deconstructions analysed comparatively. The deconstruction session is taped and finally summarized according to the contributions of the participants in the collective deconstruction process.
In summary, mind-scripting is a method to reveal hidden scripts and taken-for-granted knowledge. The texts created by recalling a specific memory can be compared, and thereby illuminate the collective understandings of the social setting, as well as differences stemming from diverse biographical experiences.
Case study: Mind-scripting in a higher education institution
As previously mentioned, the mind-scripting session presented in this article was conducted by the author in July 2010 as part of a larger research project. The group participating in the mind-scripting module consisted of the vice-rector for personnel, representatives of the faculty, representatives of administration staff, students, scientific and non-scientific unions and the equal opportunities committee. A group discussion was organized to identify a relevant topic for mind-scripting, introduce the method as well as negotiate the topic among the group members. After several proposals were considered, all members agreed to conduct the mind-scripting session on the topic ‘The last time I discussed the issue of a women’s quota at universities’. In this context it should to be mentioned that a recent university law requires a minimum ratio of 40% women on all committees. This law provoked heated discussion in Austria since, for example, at present only about 10–20% of full professors are women, and thus within this group the 40% ratio cannot in some cases be achieved. Furthermore, it has been argued that the relatively small group of female academics will now come under greater pressure to serve on committees, and consequently have less time for research – which usually brings greater prestige than committee work.
It should be noted that the topic for analysis is chosen through a process of communication with the research participants, and represents a header for a variety of experiences made by the participants. In the sense of mind-scripting, the researchers are merely acting as facilitators for the decision-making stage rather than co-determining the topic. Hence, the choice of the topic for mind-scripting is highly context-specific and varies from case to case.
After the unanimous decision on the choice of topic, the participants were asked to recall and write down a specific memory in the third person, thus guaranteeing anonymity. The texts were collected by the researchers (again without registering the authors), numbered and distributed among all participants. In a workshop lasting three hours the texts were collectively deconstructed in order to reveal similarities (representing collective constructions and meanings) as well as differences and a priori assumptions, breaks and interruptions expressed as gaps in the texts. The text deconstructions were organized in line with the list of questions mentioned above.
A total of 10 texts were submitted (referred to below as M1 to M10), reporting experiences made by the scientists as well as the administrative staff of the strategy group. Table 1 gives a brief overview of the mind-scripts.
Mind-scripts of members of the strategy group.
The deconstruction session of the texts (based on the questions listed above) revealed many ambiguities and contradictions within the internal scripts of the group members, as well as commonalities concerning the topic of a women’s quota with respect to technology and engineering. In the following, selected empirical results of the deconstruction workshop are presented, grouped around specific issues which came up in the texts. Where appropriate, a direct reference to the mind-scripts is given.
References to gender concept
One strongly shared construction of gender was the rather dualistic gender concept of strict categorization between men and women. The underlying approach was difference-oriented, with clear reference to biologically determined abilities and aptitudes. Of course, one could argue that this was a consequence of the topic under discussion, namely a ‘women’s quota’; but in fact the dualistic gender concept was also evident in mind-scripts which diverged from the initial quota topic (M1). Furthermore, the subjects clearly shared a common understanding of the male norm as given – and hence approached the issues of gender and technology from a deficit-oriented perspective, attributing the low female participation rate to a ‘lack of interest’ in technology among women and girls.
Meaning and definition of a women’s quota
Although the issue of a women’s quota was hotly discussed among the group members, no consistent definition could be determined. Instead, there existed a variety of interpretations regarding the meaning of such a quota and the way it should be implemented. Over and above the basic impact of the 40% female quota in universities’ committees (M8), some saw the regulation as being a general measure to promote women (e.g. M9), without discussing in detail how this should work. Others expressed the clear view that the quota regulation was a measure to promote women within the faculty (e.g. M5). Generally, no single shared understanding of the definition, scope and wider repercussion of the women’s quota was revealed through the deconstruction process.
Arguments against a mandatory women’s quota
Generally, the notion of the women’s quota provoked negative associations. The main argument repeatedly brought up in the mind-scripts was the potential negative impact on quality. A quota would lead to the nomination and/or appointment of women solely due to their sex, without regard to their professional qualifications for a position. It was also mentioned that a women’s quota contradicts the performance principle, as well as the willingness to perform (M3, M4, M7, M8). Those mind-scripts which referred to the ‘need for a men’s quota in administration’ followed a different line of argumentation, and did not mention the topic of qualification in this context (M2, M7).
In one case (M6) the discussion of a women’s quota was seen as rather frivolous: the person in the mind-script felt that this measure could simply not be implemented in any profit-oriented company seeking to survive the current economic crisis. Only organizations in the lucky position of being able to disregard economic considerations (resident on some ‘isle of the blessed’) could entertain the introduction of such a quota.
Arguments for a mandatory women’s quota
The rarely highlighted pros of a women’s quota were grouped around the argument that it is a quick, cheap and efficient way of promoting women, without going into details as to how this should work in practice. One mind-script (M9) viewed the quota as a steering instrument for top management, again without specifying any details.
Reasons for low participation of women in SET
From the mind-scripts (and in particular in the deconstruction meeting) it became clear that there existed a commonly shared view among the group members that the university had little power to increase the number of female students and faculty members. Those mind-scripts which referred to the wider debate on women and technology attributed the low rate of female participation to factors outside the university’s control, such as general societal circumstances (M1), gender socialization (M6), unfair recruitment practices (M5) and ‘tough’ organizational culture (M10).
Organizational culture
The mind-scripts generally recalled negative discussions on the issue of a women’s quota, sometimes rather aggressively conducted, and in no single case was a thoroughly positive atmosphere mentioned. Instead the governing feeling was one of ambivalence. In the group’s deconstruction session the difficulty of ‘selling’ the idea of women’s promotion was pointed out, with some positive effects expressed in terms of marketing advantages, such as improved social representation and the increased fun of working in mixed teams. Furthermore, it was argued that there exists a certain external political pressure to change the current situation. In general, no pro-active and innovative attitudes were apparent in the mind-scripts or uncovered by the deconstruction session.
One notable aspect was the clear reference to a technical organizational culture couched in a strongly ‘masculine’ terminology: ‘Parents play an important role in determining what is seen as negative or positive. As an example, take the sentence “Maths is complicated. I did not understand it in school and therefore hated it”. Awareness-building is needed’ (M1). This text explicitly links technology to maths and thus to analytical, logical thinking. ‘How should this [women’s quota] work at a technical university?’ (M3). This statement obviously takes the low women’s rate as an immutable fact of life. ‘Faculty appointments are initiation rituals’ (M5). The author here specifies recruitment as a strongly symbolic process of admission. ‘Facts have to be mentioned first, since numbers are the currency of a technical university’ (M9). Again, this statement highlights the importance of numbers and facts – and thus ‘objectivity’. ‘Women have problems with the rather rough tone in top management. . . . Women have to adapt to men if they want to be successful’ (M10). The statement questions whether women are constitutionally fit to survive in a male organizational culture.
In summary it can be stated that the mind-scripts displayed a largely dualistic gender concept associated with mostly hidden and unquestioned beliefs concerning gender and technology. While during previous interviews and discussions with members of the strategy group a positive attitude towards the promotion of women was generally expressed, as well as a commitment to increasing the numbers of female students and professors, the mind-scripts clearly revealed hidden, unspoken prejudices and a highly negative view of women’s quotas. Furthermore, it became quite obvious that the predominant expectation was that women have to adapt to the norms and values of the given organizational and professional cultures. Since these internal scripts were not only individually constructed (and ambiguous) but also often commonly shared, there was no motivation for subjects to question expressed self-understandings. Thus they can be read as professional codes of conduct, which strongly influence the perception of gender topics and the way those topics are handled. The examples given will be used to discuss how these scripts act as gate-keepers for SET organizations, and identify the hidden agenda which they serve.
The hidden organizational agenda in SET professions
The purpose of the empirical study was to bring to light hidden and taken-for-granted knowledge under the assumption that mental scripts guide and affect organizational practices. By making the invisible visible, unquestioned norms and values can be exposed to critical reflection, thereby initiating organizational change towards greater inclusion and reduced oppression. Hence, it makes sense to evaluate the above presented empirical results along the theoretical framework of organizational identity. Svenigsson and Alvesson (2003) define identity work in organizations as the personal investment of people to better fit into the rigid organizational identity. Dutton et al. (1994: 239) have determined that ‘organizational identification is the degree to which a member defines himself or herself by the same attributes that he or she believes define the organization’. Clearly, individuals attracted to specific organizations (such as SET organizations) are exposed to the reigning organizational value systems, represented by the organizational structures, which determine how they should feel and think about their role and work (see also Alvesson and Willmott, 2002). Educational institutions contribute to this professional understanding (see Hanappi-Egger, 2006, where the term ‘professional socialization’ is used). ‘These educational programs do not only deliver mainstream knowledge; they also serve as transmitters of a common understanding of the profession and its expectations, strongly reaffirming gender codes and gender patterns’ (Hanappi-Egger, 2011: 118). Alvesson and Empson (2006) have quoted several case studies to demonstrate that, although there may exist different ways of dealing with organizational norms, there always remains a dominant shared view consistent with the values of the organizations. In the terminology of Bourdieu’s social theory, this means that the necessary forms of capital have to be acquired, such as cultural capital (education and knowledge), as well as habitual characteristics. Of course, it has to be borne in mind that organizations are also embedded within, and formed by, the societal environment and its historical development; and thus in order to understand the current organizational behaviour of SET organizations, these have to be related to the societal history and status of science, engineering and technology.
As Hanappi-Egger (2006) has shown, the fields of engineering and technology are strongly related to the world of men due to the specifics of their historical development and their current status within society. Although a number of women have made vital contributions to these fields, their work has normally remained invisible. The ‘scientific perspective’ in SET areas has always included myths on objectivity, on a major commitment to the ‘truth’ and on being apolitical (for important feminist reflections and critique on these topics, see MacKenzie and Wajcman, 1985; see also Fox-Keller and Longino, 2003). These claims also encompass gender neutrality, in particular with respect to quality and performance standards, as well as criteria for excellence. As discussed above, these perspectives were also clearly expressed in the case studies.
In the empirical study under discussion here, the organizational values were couched in terms of objectivity, performance willingness, performance standards and facts and numbers. The notion that gender plays any role was strongly rejected; gender neutrality was repeatedly formulated, while at the same time strong reference was made to commonly shared terms of masculinity. Returning to the theoretical framing of Bourdieu (1990), as mentioned earlier, it becomes clear that these hidden gender scripts serve, on the one hand, as gate-keepers to define entrance conditions; on the other hand, individuals unconsciously reproduce given organizational cultures by applying those scripts in organizational practices.
The mentioned organizational structure and the reference to associated norms and values play an essential (taken-for-granted and thus unquestioned) role in determining the organizational behaviour of agents. This was expressed in terms of a perceived limited scope for action. The organizational structures and norms were taken-for-granted, and the organizational members – by remaining oblivious of their own power to change things – provided continuous legitimization of these. Hence, no mind-script pointed to opportunities for improvement, change or necessary adaptations of the organizational culture. Although in direct interviews during other phases of the research project there were indications of some kind of commitment to the promotion of women, the mind-scripts showed that the associated gender scripts were highly exclusive and oppressive.
These empirical results go hand in hand with the definition of habitus: ‘The habitus – embodied history, internalized as a second nature and so forgotten as history, is the active presence of the whole past, of which it is the product’ (Bourdieu, 1990: 56). Transferring this to the organizational level, Özbilgin and Tatli (2005: 864) have argued that ‘habitus at the organizational level is reproduced by the conscious, unconscious, conforming and deviant acts of organizational members who compete for hegemony over the terms used by organizational cultures’. As demonstrated by the case study, the higher education institution of technology can be characterized by specific hegemonic norms and codes – firmly based on a traditional understanding of science, engineering and technology in terms of objectivity, numbers, facts and being ‘apolitical’.
Lessons learned: Making the invisible visible
There is a growing political pressure towards ensuring gender balance and gender equality, particularly in the fields of science, engineering and technology. Despite various efforts and programmes to increase the number of females in organizations, we see the persistence of shared professional self-constructions defined in terms of masculinity. In other words, habitual characteristics are created to function as gate-keepers, thereby forcing women – who due to their sex are still perceived as being ‘the others’ – to adapt to organizational structures and norms. And indeed, as several empirical studies have shown, women in the field tend to adapt to and share in the expected norm settings (Hanappi-Egger, 2006; Wajcman and Martin, 2002), even though they experience ambivalences and ambiguities concerning their sense of belonging and their professional standing. While political pressures from above are resisted – as demonstrated in the case study looking at a women’s quota – given power relations are maintained and legitimized within the current organizational structure (see Cockburn, 1991). The conflicts and ambiguities revealed in the mind-scripts (such as the rather unclear meaning of the women’s quota, the aggressive defence of standards of quality, the vague understanding of how a quota could contribute to a more inclusive organization) can be viewed as attempts to deal with external political pressures. This makes clear that ‘the stances (“position-takings”) of organizations and their leadership seldom reduce to self-expressions of individuals or narrow calculations of self or organizational interest: rather they emerge as compromised outcomes of the whole complex of struggles and negotiations of multiple interests in inter- and intra-organizational fields that unfold over time’ (Swartz, 2008: 48).
Clearly a more radical debate is required to make SET professions and organizations more inclusive in terms of greater acceptance of other self-constructions (habitus), and thereby effect real change in the social field. As long as the political and public focus is on the perceived deficits and professional disadvantages of women, and the main proposed remedy is simply to increase the recruitment of women, then no sustainable change will be achieved. It is obvious that what is required here is critical reflection of the underlying and persistent structures, their gender codes and taken-for-granted knowledge. The aim of this article was to exemplify how gendered structures are maintained by taken-for-granted and often hidden assumptions of organizational members. The mind-scripts revealed a discrepancy between statements and vocalized opinions, and hidden internalized attitudes. While all members of the strategy group claimed, when interviewed, to be strongly committed to higher female participation, the mind-scripts highlighted the rather selective and narrow understanding of the organizational culture, and the still commonly held expectation that women must adapt to these specific norms of SET jobs. When these invisible forms of prejudice were brought to light, the members of the strategy group were astonished to discover their own unconscious gender bias. By exposing those mental scripts, a constructive discussion and critical reflection on the taken-for granted assumptions could be initiated – leading to major shifts in organizational development.
As the main barriers to inclusive organizational cultures are hidden and taken-for-granted beliefs and forms of thinking which guide and influence organizational practices, a vital first step towards a more inclusive organizational culture is to make the invisible visible. In this article we have outlined one approach to achieving this.
Limitations and further research
This article has looked at how taken-for-granted knowledge within organizational practices results in the reproduction of unquestioned norms and values. The method of mind-scripting was introduced and applied in a case study of a higher education institution of technology in order to present one technique which can be used to reveal underlying beliefs and modes of thinking. Such an attempt to make the invisible visible is, of course, an empirically difficult process. Although mind-scripting offers interesting insights and feedback to the participating group members, it clearly has some limitations. First of all, as topics frequently evolve and change during the research process, an evolutionary research design is required to accommodate any unforeseen topics which may arise. In the case study, for example, although the topic of the women’s quota was considered highly relevant, the research team did not directly plan for this to be the topic of investigation.
Second, the topic intended to be investigated by mind-scripting may trigger a collection of largely heterogeneous texts, encompassing a variety of self-constructions and masquerading of the authors. Clearly, no evidence of the author’s background, gender, profession and the like is delivered. This means that researchers have to accept that these texts are only basic sources for analysis. Mind-scripting certainly differs from ‘traditional’ ways of data collection, and thus necessitates an unusual research design, which can challenge participants as well as researchers. This specific research design is itself worthy of further research and reflection, in view of the fact that relevant case studies are always highly specific and context-sensitive. It would be interesting to discover whether any patterns of taken-for-granted knowledge exist in similar organizations, branches or professions. Another fruitful line of research would be to monitor whether making the invisible visible really does expose organizational practices to critical discussion, and thereby lead to decisive change over time.
Footnotes
Acknowledgements
The author thanks the anonymous reviewers for helpful recommendations to improve the article. The support of Gloria Warmuth in conducting the mind-scripting session is also highly appreciated.
Funding
This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.