Academic women's promotions in Australian universities

Hilary P.M. Winchester · Shard Lorenzo · Lynette Browning · Colleen Chesterman

82 citations0/0 files storedEmployee Relations

No readable copy stored yet — this record is metadata only.

No open-access location is known for this record yet.

Literature note Cite in a project Citation map

Gender Diversity and Inequality Gender and Feminist Studies Career Development and Diversity

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this research is to examine the hypothesis that under‐representation of women in Australian universities reflects barriers in the academic promotion process. Design/methodology/approach This study uses three complementary approaches. Promotion policies and guidelines are examined using content analysis of documents from all Australian universities. A sample of 17 universities was selected for interviews with key gatekeepers to examine promotions practice. Data on promotions by level and gender were analysed for 16 of these universities 2000‐2002. Findings The analysis of promotions policies and guidelines established a range of practice. Policies supporting women's participation and success in promotions included explicit consideration of part‐time and non‐traditional careers, clear equity statements, and gender representation on promotions committees. Interviews emphasised the importance of support for and identification of female candidates, and the need for the establishment of institution‐wide and performance targets for senior managers. Implicitly, most interviewees accepted the premise that women experienced barriers in the promotion process, including reticence in applying and stereotypically gendered notions of merit. However, the analysis of promotions data showed a more encouraging picture. Application rates and success rates for women are similar to men's and, at professorial level, slightly higher. Nonetheless women remain under‐represented at senior levels, comprising only 16 per cent of the professoriate. Practical implications The study provided a report to the Australian Vice‐Chancellors' Committee (AVCC) with a number of recommendations for improving University promotions policies. These recommendations are available on the AVCC website and have applicability beyond the Australian university sector. Originality/value This study is an original study across all Australian universities which has international applicability and policy relevance.

Paper brief

Loading…

Cite this work

Citation unavailable for this work.

BibTeX RIS CSL-JSON

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Citations in this library

Citation map →

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 82 citations exist upstream.

References

2005‘I Just Couldn’t Fit It In’: Gender and Unequal Outcomes in Academic Careers 1991THE CORPORATE INTERVIEW AS A RESEARCH METHOD IN ECONOMIC GEOGRAPHY∗2001Leadership in higher education 2000Academe's Glass Ceiling: Societal, Professional‐Organizational, and Institutional Barriers to the Career Advancement of Academic Women 2000Gender Discrimination in the Promised Land of Gender Equality 2003Women and leadership in higher education in Australia 2001A case study of women academics’ views on equal opportunities, career prospects and work‐family conflicts in a UK university 2001Fighting the pipeline fallacy

Cited by

2020Missing women in Indian university leadership: Barriers and facilitators 2008What's Wrong with the Pipeline? Assumptions about Gender and Culture in IT Work 2011Senior women in higher education institutions: perceived development needs and support 2018Braving the bull: women, mentoring and leadership in higher education 1969Promotion at Canadian Universities: The Intersection of Gender, Discipline, and Institution

Explore the map →

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.

Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.