AMBIENTE1 PERSONAS

Universities are traditional sites of learning and seen as producers of knowledge within an emerging global knowledge economy (Blackmore & Sachs, 2000; Brooks, 2001). Historically, leadership in higher education has been organised in hierarchical structures (Fletcher, 2007). The hierarchical nature of universities has been reinforced by social formations of bureaucracies informed by liberal political theories that premised the relationship between society and the individual (Blackmore, 2005a; Blackmore et al, 2000). The changing contours of higher education show that “there has been a gradual shift away from relative autonomy to centralized direction through the major changes in the structure of institutional governance” (Shaw & Chassell, 2007, p. 500), as universities are driven by market and performance-oriented goals. The economic and managerial transformations of universities as a result of organisational restructuring to meet the demands of globalization have had implications for women academics in these environments where management and leadership opportunities have been a terrain traditionally dominated by men (Bagilhole & White, 2008; Blackmore, 2005a; Blackmore et al, 2000; Brooks, 2001).

Such implications were first alluded to by Blackmore (1989), who argued that “liberal political theory promoted a hegemonic masculinist view of leadership, which is grounded in particular interpretations of rationality, morality, organisations and individualism” (p. 99). Similarly, Davis (1994) believed that educational institutions continue to reinforce which gender has more power in speaking for and deciding for the organisations. Very recent research shows that men dominate the formal leadership positions in the higher education sector worldwide (Blackmore, 2009; Shad, 2009; Sobehart, 2009; Strachan, 2009). Consequently, it has been documented that the university culture itself may not be welcoming for women, and the term „chilly climate‟ has been used by Sandler and Hall (1986) to describe the university workplace. The term „organisational

23

culture‟ refers to the sets of norms, beliefs, and values that are commonly shared by members of the organisation (Kezar & Eckel, 2002; Rutherford, 2001; Schein, 1992; Trinidad & Normore, 2005), and also applies to codes of behaviour, processes and policies in the organisation (Schein, 1992). An example of the masculine culture is provided in Shaw and Chassell‟s (2007) study of male and female academics in business schools in UK universities, examining the impact of gender on the way academic performance was perceived. They found that all the business schools upheld the masculine culture by, for example, referring to the tutor positions as women‟s jobs while male academics dominated the leadership positions. Thus, it could be perceived that the masculine culture gave men access to more privileges and opportunities for leadership positions in the universities, and marginalized women.

After a three year research project that focused on the experiences on the women leaders in Australian universities, Blackmore and Sachs (2000) concluded that with restructuring processes within the universities, which are also premised on managerialism, the notion of the woman academic has become problematic. They elaborated:

Paradoxically, senior women are framed as both workers and management workers. They identified as academics but the nature of their work as they move into senior positions is more aligned with management. Many women do try to balance these subject positions, but for many there is a personal cost, frustration, overwork, and doing things on the run. (p. 6)

It is possible that in the midst of ongoing university restructuring, women academics may encounter a dilemma between prioritizing academic and managerial work which is attached to their roles and responsibilities as leaders. The conflict between the different roles can impact on their opportunities to gain leadership roles and may also influence their future aspirations to leadership positions. This is illustrated in Fletcher‟s (2007) case study evaluating the situation of women manager-academics in a UK university regarding gender equity. She found that many of the women had experienced a high level of stress and sometimes when they were invited to address the gender imbalance and make

24

up in the numbers for interviews, for senior management positions. However, they declined as they were not keen about further promotion. Participants in Fletcher‟s (2007) study felt that the competitive and managerial nature of the institution had a detrimental effect on the effectiveness of their collaborative leadership practices. For this research, it was vital to find out how the women subjects balanced the two aspects of leadership and management in their responsibilities as leaders.

Recent research shows that in developing and developed countries women academics are still under-represented in leadership positions (Sobehart, 2009). Below are statistics representing women leaders by role/title at the executive level in universities from a number of countries from year 2007, in Germany: chancellors (17%); Hong Kong: professors (8%), and senior lecturers (15%); South Africa: vice chancellors (4%), and UK: vice-chancellors (13.2%). In 2005, there were three female chancellors and 11 vice-chancellors at the 38 Australian universities (Blackmore, 2009). In 2005 in New Zealand, 13.8% of professors and 19.9% of associate professors were females (Strachan, 2009). Looking at academic status by in professorship by rank/discipline in a number of countries Sobehart (2009) found: Bangladesh-17%, Germany-16.6 %, Greece-15%, Hong Kong-8%, Tanzania-11% and UK-19%. Shah (2009) found significantly low representation of female academics in Pakistani universities, with 7,962 women academics and 52,671 male academics. She used data from three universities to make a comparison between male and female academics in formal leadership positions, and discovered that there were 11 male deans and only three female deans. She also found that of heads of departments 18 were female and 93 were male.

The above statistics reveal that across the globe women are still under-represented in formal leadership positions in the higher education sector. It also portrays that even though there are provisions for gender equality in both developed and developing countries, they are not specifically intended to ensure fair representation of women in leadership positions (Ozkanli et al, 2008; Sanal, 2008). The statistics above indicated that there has been a small growth in the number of women professors in the UK. Fletcher‟s (2007) study, found that in 2004-2005 14 % of the academic women leaders in the universities were

25

professors. After five years, according to Sobehart (2009), it had only increased by 2%. This means that although there is evidence of growth, it is at a snail‟s pace. If this is the case in a developed country like the UK and other developed countries, how would this be different in PNG higher education, especially in this patriarchal society?