Énfasis de formación

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 A B C D E A B C D E A B C D E A B C D E A B C D E A B C D E Law Accounting Applied

Economics Hospitality, Tourism Marketing, Information Systems. Management. M F

The charts above show that aggregate figures disguise some of the very distinct pockets within the university where women are seriously under-represented. There are similar pockets within the Faculty of Health, Science and Engineering, discussed in Chapter One. Together, this profile shows that VU’s disciplinary mix is a factor in women’s prospects for promotion to Level D at Victoria University. These characteristics are further compounded by the trend toward making senior appointments via the process of external application as detailed below.

The effect of external appointments

A further characteristic of reform, as identified by Doughney and Vu (2006) is the trend toward external recruitment at senior levels. The effect is to minimise the opportunities for promotion internally, which has a particular impact on women in the transition from Levels C to D. Human resources data collected by VU shows that this trend has been in operation since establishment as a university. Between 1992 and 2007, an average of 9.5 external appointments was made per year at Levels D and E. The annual average of female appointments was 2.2 compared with the average number of male appointments which has been 7.3. This is not a trend that is declining if appointments made in 2007 are any indication. Six external appointments were made at senior academic levels in that year. Out of these, one was made at Level D and five at Level E (VU 2008a). All of these appoi ntments were male. Over this 15-year period, women have not fared a great deal better with an average annual number of 2.3 appointments by internal promotion compared with the male average of 7.9. The difference is that women have started to do better by this method more recently. In 2007, two out of five internal promotions were female appointments. On the basis of this data, success in appointment by external advertising is heavily biased toward men.9

Overall, gender representation at VU follows national trends in terms of women’s progress in academic employment. Women’s participation has increased but women remain relatively subordinate in terms of seniority and are poorly represented in traditionally male disciplinary areas. As shown in Chapter One, most universities share these characteristics. At VU at least, the effects of this are compounded by the impact of external appointment at a senior level. Such trends and processes weaken the capacity of EEO policy and strategy to ensure gender equity within institutions.

9

Data derived from VU human resources records compiled for the purpose of the measurement of workloads as well as from VU annual compliance reports to the EOWA.

Gender equity in academic staffing

As noted in Chapter One, gender equity in higher education staffing is supported primarily by Commonwealth anti-discrimination and equal opportunity legislation and by Universities Australia targets for gender equity in universities. The Equal Opportunity Practitioners in Higher Education Association (EOPHA) also acts as a professional association that promotes networking and professional development for higher education practitioners engaged in social justice and gender equity initiatives. In common with universities nationally, VU has been compliant with legislation and is an active participant in policy development, program implementation and research around student and staff equity within VU (VU 2008a).

While such efforts toward EEO and gender equity staffing continue, their priority within the scheme of university operations and their emphasis has changed in the context of neo-liberal higher education reform. Thornton (2008) usefully provides a history and analysis of key developments relating to EEO policy and practice in the reformed university system. She highlights that the initial aim of EEO in universities was to ‘modernis(e) the old patriarchal order’ (2008 p. 2) and the role of the women’s movement in driving EEO through the 1970s and 1980s. Implementation within organisations, however, was problematic for many reasons not least of which were the difficulties that arose when EEO officers, appointed initially in senior positions within university structures, tried to change practices that had traditionally worked to men’s advantage. As Thornton (2008 p. 6) puts it, senior managers were highly resistant to the ‘time-honoured practices of homo-social reproduction’. To accompany practical difficulties that arose in actually implementing the change agenda, just as policy and programs and initiatives began to gain traction, a rising backlash was generated on the basis that affirmative action was ‘unequal’. This backlash coincided with the implementation of the Dawkins reforms. In the midst of the widespread changes to higher education, EEO was largely submerged and the concerns of women as a discrete interest group were rapidly marginalised. This was an international trend that occurred rapidly after women initially gained entrance and some degree of success within universities (Faludi 1992; Blackmore & Sachs 2003).

While attention to equity initiatives remained as part of the higher education agenda and university structures, the initiatives have continued in a different form. The number of women in universities also progressively increased although, initially, this was largely an outcome of the amalgamation of CAEs, which had higher female representation than the established universities (Thornton 2008). Greater numbers did not necessarily mean equity, Thornton argues, and there were a number of trends that weakened attention to gender equity in university employment. First, the process of corporatisation promoted the trend of minimal

compliance with legislation. This trend is reflected in the watering down of organisational reporting requirements to the Equal Opportunity for Women Agency (EOWA) which was initially called the Affirmative Action Agency – a change that occurred when the Affirmative Action (Equal Opportunity for Women) Act 1986 was reviewed and changed in 1999 (Strachan, Burgess et al. 2004). Changes to the Act reduced the relatively minimal reporting requirements of organisations even further to the point that waivers could be granted if organisations could demonstrate compliance. Within universities, in line with this trend, equity units were left without reporting lines and were established as independent entities within organisations. Thornton (2008 p. 6) describes this as ‘a nail in the coffin for EEO’ as the people and the organisations responsible for implementation were effectively anomalies within organisational structures with little relationship to the ‘real’ business of higher education. The more recent development has been to break up these units, and ‘mainstream’ them with the devolution of responsibility through faculties, schools and departments (Brown 2007). While Burton (1997) advises that this does not necessarily mean that EEO should be rendered ineffective, the actual outcome is often a ‘drying up’ of resources, and an unwillingness for anyone to take responsibility (Thornton 2008 p. 9).

The related development was the discursive shift from social justice and equity to diversity. Largely informed by postmodern concepts of difference (Thomas 1991) as opposed to seeing women as a group with common interests, the focus was shifted to an understanding of individual as opposed to collective interests (Probert 2006). In partnership with neo-liberal- inspired policy change and the corporatisation of higher education, EEO and affirmative action were, if not replaced, limited by the discourse ‘managing diversity’. This was a framework supported by Commonwealth policy and conceived of as more palatable to senior managers due to its lack of legislative compliance requirements and its ability to overcome the perceived polarisations between men and women generated by affirmative action (Pyke 2008). As Thornton (2008 p. 14) describes it, diversity was a better fit with the neo-liberal meta narrative, leading to the notion that EEO was passé. A further implication was that issues of equity became focused on supporting individual women to compete more effectively for career opportunities and progression. Within this framework, as Thornton (2008 p. 8) indicates, if women are ‘unsuccessful’ it is because of their inefficient life ‘choices’, such as having children. It was the individual’s fault if they didn’t take the opportunities presented.

Thornton’s main argument is that within the corporate university, there is no room for EEO except where a ‘business case’ can be demonstrated. This arises through the inherent clash between the social justice intentions of EEO and the neo-liberal conception of the individual as a ‘…rationally calculating individual concerned with the maximisation of profits and self-

promotion … or (rational) economic man (Thornton 2008 p. 9). In the higher education system, individual academics must be ‘productive’ and be seen to perform in accordance with the micro-managerial accountability mechanisms that have progressively been put into place. Competition means that inequality becomes defined by who are the winners and losers. While the social liberal principals that previously informed the meaning of the university allowed room for ideas about the collective good, this has been replaced by ‘competitive individualism mediated through the brand name of the university that is played out in the market’ (Thornton 2008 p. 10). The imperative to generate profit justifies a range of practices such as workforce casualisation and the demise of collective bargaining. Thornton argues that this imperative silences equity discourses and in so doing, further entrenches traditional race, class and gender hierarchies (2008 p. 10). What is not in contradiction is the use of equity discourse in relation to students. As fee-paying customers, the need to attract as many students as possible into higher education, disadvantaged or not, is a worthwhile endeavour. The relationship of students to the ‘business’ of higher education is clear.

Equity policy and practice at Victoria University

The progressive marginalisation of EEO at VU has essentially mirrored the developments that Thornton describes. A review of VU Annual reports from 1993 to 2007 gives some evidence for this. For example, the early annual reports of VUT give a high profile to the activities of the access and equity unit established to support staff and student equity. While the access and equity report comes last the reports are presented in a way that looks like equal status to the work of the faculties from 1993 to 1995. From this point, university annual reports become noticeably ‘streamlined’ and reports on access and equity become one subject heading alongside other matters such as reports on Year 2000 compliance, ITS services and compliance with national competition policy (VUT 1998). Only one mention is made of the implementation of affirmative action initiatives in each annual report from 1993 to 2002. A further parallel to Thornton’s (2008) observations is the adoption of a Managing Diversity Plan (VUT 1998). By 2007, the annual report includes no reference to access and equity (VU 2008d).

VU has also recently ‘mainstreamed’ access and equity functions within the university. Since formation in 1992, VU has included a dedicated access and equity unit comprising a number of managerial and specialist staff dedicated to student and staff equity. By 2006, however, VU was one of very few universities to organise access and equity services in this way (Brown 2007) and by 2008, by directive of the VC, access and equity were ‘mainstreamed’ (Harman 2008d). The change was justified by reference to the need to ‘reinvent’ VU structures to meet the challenges of the future and to align with the new VU statement of purpose, The Making

VU 2016: A statement of purpose. The priority given to student equity, above the concerns of staff, was also stressed (Harman 2008d).

The developments described above have not cancelled out all attention to gender equity in academic staffing but it is addressed within individualised terms and is implemented primarily to meet the compliance requirements of the Equal Opportunity for Women Act 1986. The most notable initiatives relevant to this study in the period prior to the study were the expansion of a career development program for women, a revised academic promotion policy and procedure and the introduction of parental leave benefits that include 14 weeks of paid parental leave (VU 2005b). There have been few further developments since then although the career development program for women continues. The other recent development is that there has been a commitment to seeking recognition as an ‘Employer of Choice for Women’ by the EOWA (Harman 2008e). This requires addressing six criteria which relate to demonstrated improvement in management structures, work flexibility arrangements, paid maternity leave provisions, sex-based harassment prevention strategies, improvements in pay equity and the meeting of targets in relation to women’s representation in senior positions. At the time of writing, this process is still in progress.

The Vice Chancellor has also been public in her commitment to improving women’s representation in leadership. At the Higher Education Summit, 2008, Harman presented a paper on the need for the increased representation of women in leadership (Harman 2008e). In this statement, she is explicit in her commitment to not ‘…cover the same old ground lamenting women’s under-representation at senior levels in higher education or rehearse … arguments about the barriers yet to be overcome’ (2008e p. 1). Instead she makes a case for the need for action due to skill shortages and that this needs to be done by implementing a range of measures that, like the VU strategic plan, all start with the letter ‘C’ – Culture, Continuity, Cash and Critical Mass. Despite the discussion that is dedicated to these ‘Cs’, the actions proposed in this paper are cautious. They are about the redesign of policies, improved flexibility and staying in touch with women when they have career breaks (Harman 2008). It is noteworthy that, at the time of writing, the major restructure to have occurred since making this presentation is the implementation of a plan to make 150 academic staff redundant (Harman 2008b).

Overall, approaches to gender equity for academic staff implemented at VU closely align with the observations made by Thornton (2008) about national trends in EEO since their initial implementation in the 1980s. In line with VU’s corporatisation, reporting on EEO has become increasingly minimalist to the point that it has disappeared from annual reports altogether.

Responsibility for access and equity initiatives and programs has been mainstreamed and officers responsible for equity in university staffing now exist as a small unit within the Human Resources Division. The approach to gender equity is now highly individualised and women are supported to compete more effectively for promotion. This is supported by the discourse of diversity, which highlights the differences between women rather than their commonalities. At a senior level, there is an expressed reluctance to give attention to the barriers that women might face and women’s increased representation at senior levels is argued for on the basis of economics that align with the university’s key priority, which – by implication – is to generate profit. At the same time, few measures are proposed to ensure that this happens.

Conclusion

This chapter has provided a brief history and context for ‘VU as a case’ describing VU as one of 39 universities that make up the Australian higher education system. This description is put within the context of higher education reform processes that have unfolded since the 1987 Dawkins reforms and continued under the Howard Government from 1996 to 2007. As a whole, the reform process has transformed the nature of academic work, just at the time when women have entered higher education in any real numbers. The reforms, informed by neo- liberal economic philosophy as they are, have led to ‘competitive individualism mediated through the brand name of the university that is played out in the market’ (Thornton 2008 p. 10). VU is poorly positioned within the higher education market due to its geography, history and demographic context. Academic women at the university are also differently positioned, and more harshly impacted by the implications of reform. Efforts to support women’s progression within academic employment have continued but are largely dominated by the market imperatives that drive higher education in the reformed university. VU’s approach to gender equity is largely reflective of broader national trends. It is still there but in a minimal form and defined by the terms of the market.

The following chapter reports on the findings of interviews conducted with academic women at VU who, at the time of interview, were employed at Level C. Within the framework of the interviews, a number of specific policies and events were raised and discussed as having a gendered impact on promotion aspirations. These include organisational restructure itself, the staff ‘renewal’ plan, management practices within schools and departments, changes in promotion policy, equity policies and programs, the workloads model and the ‘Research Activity Index’. These are explored in more detail in Chapter Six where I discuss the outcomes of the interviews and the relationship of policy change on women’s aspirations and opportunities for promotion.