An autoethnographic account of a pragmatic inclusionary strategy and tactics as a form of feminist activism

• DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/EDI-12-2018-0227
• Published date: 18 November 2019
• Pages: 825-840
• Date: 18 November 2019
• Author: Pat O’Connor
• Subject Matter: Hr & organizational behaviour,Employment law

An autoethnographic account of

a pragmatic inclusionary

strategy and tactics as a form

of feminist activism

Pat O’Connor

Department of Sociology, University of Limerick, Limerick, Ireland and

Geary Institute, University College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland

Abstract

Purpose –The purpose of this paper is to explore the enactment of a pragmatic inclusionary strategy and

related tactics as a form of feminist activism in one university.

Design/methodology/approach –The paper uses analytic autoethnography.

Findings –It shows how it is possible for a feminist activist to create limited change in what is typically seen

as an intractable indicator of gender equality, i.e. gender parity at full professorial level.

Research limitations/implications –Analytic autoethnography as a method has considerable

methodological limitations although it also offers insights into insider strategies and tactics.

Practical implications –The identification of such a strategy and tactics may be useful to activists,

decision-makers and policy makers with an interest in tackling any source of inequality.

Social implications –The identification of such a strategy and tactics may be useful to activists,

decision-makers and policy makers with an interest in tackling any source of inequality.

Originality/value –Five tactics, reflecting a pragmatic inclusionary strategy are identified, i.e. provocative

misbehaviour; individualised managing management; perverse alignments; resisting silencing and gaining

legitimacy; activating latent social movement ties to change national policy.

Keywords Higher education, Autoethnographic, Feminist institutionalism, Feminist activism,

Pragmatic inclusionary strategy, Tactics

Paper type Research paper

Introduction

Universities have historically been hierarchically male dominated institutions with men

constituting the majority of those in senior academic and management positions in a

masculinised structure and culture, which reinforces women’s subordinate position and lack

of “recognition”(Fraser, 2008). Witz (2013) identified exclusionary strategies which denied

women’s access to the professions in the nineteenth and twentieth century. She also

described inclusionary strategies: “the upwards, countervailing exercise of power by a social

group which is hit by exclusionary strategies, but which in its turn, seeks inclusion within

the structure of positions from which its members are collectively debarred”(Witz, 2013,

p. 48). She identified credentialist and legalistic tactics used in pursuit of that strategy. More

subtle exclusionary strategies persist in male dominated areas in higher education (HE)

while female dominated areas, which are likely to have greater gender equality in terms of

leadership, are devalued (England, 2010). This paper is concerned with the identification of a

pragmatic inclusionary strategy and tactics to increase gender parity in the male dominated

academic professoriate.

In Ireland, women constitute the majority of those at the lowest level of the academic

staff hierarchy, but only a minority of those at full professorial level (HEA, 2018a; European

Commission, 2019). Male dominance inhibits research innovation (EC, 2012), economic Equality, Diversity and Inclusion:

An International Journal

Vol. 38 No. 8, 2019

pp. 825-840

© Emerald PublishingLimited

2040-7149

DOI 10.1108/EDI-12-2018-0227

Received 12 December 2018

Revised 2 April 2019

20 June 2019

Accepted 16 July 2019

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

www.emeraldinsight.com/2040-7149.htm

The author would like to acknowledge the very helpful comments made by Teresa Carvalho on earlier

drafts of this article.

825

Pragmatic

inclusionary

strategy and

tactics

growth (OECD, 2012) and the utilisation of talent, however defined. It is a social justice issue

which limits the availability of role models and ultimately constitutes symbolic violence

(Bourdieu, 2001).

Creating change in organisations is difficult (By, 2005). Relatively little is known “about the

gendered nature of organisational change and intervention processes”(Parsons and Priola, 2013,

p. 580). The purportedly gender neutral but in practice masculinised structure and culture of HE,

with its purportedly gender neutral neoliberal ideologies of excellence and individual choice,

pose particular challenges for internal change agents such as feminist activists. Achieving

gender parity at full professorial level is frequently seen as an intractable issue: challenging as it

does the equation between power and masculinity. With a few notable exceptions (such as

Harford, 2018; Devine et al., 2011) little attention has been paid in an Irish context to the

experience of women in these positions. Using an autoethnographic approach, this paper

explores the pragmatic inclusionary strategy and tactics adopted to improve gender parity at

professorial level in one neoliberal HE context, namely, the University of Limerick (UL) in

Ireland. In UL the proportion of women at (full) professorial level increased from zero in 1997 to

34 per cent in 2012, subsequently remaining at 31 per cent: considerably higher than the average

(24 per cent) for universities in Ireland and the EU (HEA, 2018a; European Commission, 2019).

Theoretical framework

The theoretical perspective is that of Feminist Institutionalism (FI) (Mackay et al., 2010;

Mackay, 2011). Building on the work of Acker (1990, 2006) on gendered organisations and

Connell (1987, 2002) on gender regimes, FI is concerned with “the gendered character of

institutions and the gendering effects of institutions”including “mechanisms of continuity,

and the promise and limits of gendered change”(Mackay, 2011, p. 181). It sees gender

operating at the structural and cultural level and at the formal and informal level. Gender is

seen as a “constitutive element of social relations based upon perceived (socially constructed

and culturally variable) differences between women and men, and as a primary way of

signifying (and naturalising) relations of power and hierarchy”(Mackay et al., 2010, p. 580).

It suggests that a devaluation of women is implicit in the very construction of gender.

Gendered structures, procedures, practices, processes, criteria and culture normalise and

hence implicitly legitimate that devaluation.

Taking Walby’s (2011) definition of feminism as the contestation of established

institutions and practices of power, feminism can be identified at the micro level. Assuming

that gender is embedded in everyday life (West and Zimmerman, 1987) the dominant

gendered social order in male dominated organisations can be challenged and the

association between men and power positions broken.

In the last two-or-three decades universities have been deeply affected by neoliberal

principles, ideas and practices (Walby, 2009, 2011). Collegial governance structures are

being replaced by more top-down ones, where centralised power is the norm (Carvalho and

Santiago, 2010). Neoliberalism involves a strong focus on global rankings and metrics,

particularly research metrics. The effects of these changes on gender equality in HE is

contested (Acker and Wagner, 2019; Deem, 1998; O’Connor, 2014a; Lynch et al., 2012). FI has

tended not to focus on neoliberalism, although Grace (2011, p. 111) noted that neoliberalism

has tended to “degender and depoliticize women’s experiences by framing them as workers,

individuals and family members”, and so has arguably contributed to perpetuating the

myth of gender neutrality in HE.

Models of change in HE have mainly focussed on the impact of external factors, such as

neoliberalism, and specific gender interventions (such as Athena SWAN in the UK

(Barnard, 2017), ADVANCE in the USA (Laursen and De Welde, 2019). However, it has

also been recognised that particular organisational characteristics are important

(O’Connor, 2017) and that change can be driven by feminist activists internally

826

EDI

38,8