ABSTRACT
Following Joan Acker’s concept (Acker 1991), universities represent a prototypical example of a gendered organisation. According to her concept, universities are bundles of practices based on the normative concept of the ‘typical scientist’ (Weber 1996) who is fully devoted to science and not restricted by external influences such as care responsibilities. Numerous practices in academia are based on this concept – most relevant for the purposes of this chapter are those used to assess ‘excellent science’ or ‘excellent scientists’. This is especially important in the context of selection procedures for scientists (at all stages of their academic career). A vast amount of the research and literature published on this subject detects a gender bias in such practices (e.g. Demos et al. 2014; Riegraf et al. 2010; Fogelberg et al. 1999). Since the 1980s, numerous interventions have sought to tackle this gender bias and achieve a sustainable change of traditional practices (e.g. EC 2004, 2012). However, the university remains stable as a gendered organisation. Recent studies have also revealed a paradoxical phenomenon with regard to measures to promote women in academia (Strid and Husu 2013): although numerous measures to increase gender equality in science and research have been successfully implemented over recent decades, only moderate change has occurred. In this chapter, I will discuss this paradox using the case of university appointment procedures for full professors in Austria. These procedures (as regulated by law and by university statutes) contain specific provisions to promote women and prevent gender discrimination (e.g. a gender quota for appointment committees). Yet even if all these provisions are adhered to, gender bias can be reinforced. Correspondingly, adherence to regulations does not necessarily bring about the intended change. This chapter focuses on the discrepancy between structures and individual action and asks why it is so difficult to change traditional practices in appointment procedures. In doing so, I use reflection and reflexivity as concepts to bridge this discrepancy. My analysis follows a praxeological approach, which does not endeavour to explain human action primarily on either the individual or the structural level, but instead allows chains of action(s) to be analysed from a perspective which considers both the actions open to individual actors
as well as the effect(s) of socialised structures. Within this framework, the concept of reflexivity is used to depict starting points for the (further) development of policies. I begin with a discussion of gendered practices in university appointment procedures and a brief description of the corresponding situation in Austria (including the legal framework). I then go on to describe how such procedures are implemented at university level and highlight the paradoxical situations where practices remain unchanged despite the introduction and enforcement of concrete regulations. I argue that this stability is due to a lack of reflection and reflexivity and describe cases where the latter has indeed led to the development of alternative practices with reduced gender bias. Based on these results, I conclude with a discussion of the starting points for initialising reflexivity. By way of example, I refer throughout this chapter to research conducted in Austrian universities between 2009 and 2011 which focused on the implementation of appointment procedures for full professors (Wroblewski et al. 2011; Wroblewski and Leitner 2010). My analysis is based on qualitative interviews with stakeholders in such appointment procedures (rectors, members of senate, equal opportunities working groups and heads of appointment committees) and the examination of strategic university documents (statutes, female advancement plans, guidelines for appointment procedures).
