Julie Wells
Women’s participation in higher education has grown rapidly in the past few years - from 45% of the total student load in 1980 to 54.4% of student load in 1997. Some have suggested that it’s time to stop targeting women for equity initiatives. In DEETYA, arguments are being made that we should target all equity initiatives to those of low socio-economic status, a group which remains severely under-represented in higher education, thereby ignoring inequalities deriving specifically from race or gender. Yet, while the burgeoning numbers of women participating in higher education tell one story, employment in higher education - especially at the upper levels - remains dominated by men, and the paradigm of career advancement remains masculine. This article looks at some recent studies of women’s employment in higher education, and points to some important avenues for change.
Official statistics suggest that fewer women than men are making it to senior academic positions. As Table 1 shows, not only are women under-represented in academic employment, they are most seriously under-represented at senior levels, comprising only 14% of positions above senior lecturer. Women are also less likely than men to have access to continuing employment, reflecting in part their concentration at lower levels of employment. (In 1997, DEETYA estimates that just over 52% of academic staff (full-time equivalent) held continuing or tenurable appointments. Of this group, only 28% were women.)
Table 1 - Academic staff in public universities, 1997 (FTE) Source: Selected Higher Education Staff Statistics 1997, DEETYA
|
Above senior lecturer |
Senior Lecturer (Level C) |
Lecturer (Level B) |
Level A |
Total Academic Classifications |
|
|
Male |
5502 (86%) |
6098 (74.5%) |
6933 (58.3%) |
3254(48.3%) |
21787(65.6%) |
|
Female |
897 (14%) |
2078 (25.5%) |
4957 (42.7%) |
3510(51.7%) |
11442(34.4%) |
|
Total |
6399 (100%) |
8176 (100%) |
11890 (100%) |
6764(100%) |
33229(100%) |
Under-representation at senior levels is, of course, reflected in levels of income earned, and a recent study by RMIT researchers Belinda Probert, Peter Ewer and Kim Whiting showed that, on average, male academics earn around $439 per fortnight more than women.(1)
So why are women under-represented? The Report of the Women in Science, Engineering and Technology (WISET) Committee in 1995 found that, particularly in male-dominated areas such as the sciences, women were deterred or marginalised by a masculine culture.(2) This perspective was echoed in a recent New Scientist editorial, which quoted an American study: 'Girls [in school] are encouraged to be good students, insofar as they expect to be given a task, complete it well and then receive a reward from an authority figure. In graduate school, behaviour is expected to be independent, strategic and devoid of interpersonal support.'(3) Certainly, the individualised and increasingly competitive culture of higher education raises questions about the extent to which women are socialised to succeed in this arena.
This is not to suggest that women are not committed to their careers, or capable of achieving great success. The study by Probert et al. - which incorporated extensive interview and survey data - found women academics to be just as career-oriented and ambitious as men. It also found that once women established a foothold on the academic career path, they tended to do very well. The main problem encountered was getting that foothold and securing ongoing employment, and here two factors were shown to be crucial: whether the academic had gained a PhD, and how much time she/he had spent in higher education. In relation to the latter, women were far more likely to be working part-time than men, and to have interrupted employment; with negative influences on their chances of promotion. Women staff were also less likely to have a PhD (36% of the women in Probert’s study had PhDs, compared with 56% of men). In the sciences, the proportions of women with PhDs were relatively high, but still low compared with their male colleagues - 55% in maths and sciences (compared with 76% of men) - but only 30% of women in Engineering, Medicine and Built Environment areas held PhDs, compared with 54% of male colleagues.(1)
Clearly, developing policies and institutional practices to facilitate women gaining PhDs, and modifying promotion criteria and performance evaluation mechanisms to take account of career interruptions, would significantly assist gender equity in higher education. Probert et al.(1) suggest consideration of alternative scholarship models - for example, shorter periods on higher pay - to help working women, especially those with family responsibilities, to complete their PhD.
In a recent report on gender equity, Clare Burton also highlighted the importance of institutional policies and practices and, in particular, the positive impact which good equal employment opportunity (EEO) strategies can have on women’s employment profiles.(4) Such programs, she argues, exist where universities have developed specific goals and mechanisms to achieve them; have made real progress in integrating EEO into strategic planning exercises; formally consult with women and communicate EEO policy regularly to the University through a variety of channels. Burton also emphasises the importance of women’s participation in the key decision-making committees within the university, and not just those where they have an obvious stake, such as EEO or safety on campus.
While Burton’s report highlights the importance of institutional policies and practices in shifting the employment culture, problems also arise from the overarching deregulatory policy environment within which universities are operating. Funding cuts and universities’ increasing reliance on external funding sources have led to higher levels of casual and short-term employment, as institutions look for ways to reduce staffing costs and retain maximum flexibility in the expenditure of funds on teaching and research. This is likely to increase the difficulties of gaining ongoing employment, and reduce the number of opportunities available.
One positive development in the regulation of non-continuing employment is the Industrial Relations Commission’s issuing of the Higher Education Contract of Employment Award, which came into effect on 1st July. Under the new award, the use of fixed-term contracts is prohibited except in specified circumstances, and all staff (including casuals) are to receive letters of appointment specifying the type of employment contract, salary, classification, hours of work, and conditions of employment; including the reason why a position is non-continuing. The award provides better notice, severance pay and other benefits to some categories of non-continuing staff, and the Commission has warned that it will consider whether closer regulation of casual employment is required to check the unfettered casualisation of the academic workforce. This award has been made after a long campaign by the National Tertiary Education Union, which represents academic and general staff, to fight the accelerating use of non-continuing employment within universities. However, the fight to ensure that it is implemented fairly and effectively is just beginning.
A copy of the HECE award and further information is available on the Union’s Website (www.edunions.labor.net.au/nteu).
For more advice about the award and how it might affect you, or about the National Tertiary Education Union, contact the branch office at your University.
Alternatively, you can ring the division office in your state:
Victoria: Tel. 03 9254 1930
New South Wales: Tel. 02 9212 5433
Aust. Capital Territory: Tel. 02 6249 2043
Queensland: Tel. 07 3846 2355
Western Australia: Tel. 08 9351 7145
South Australia: Tel. 08 8303 5792
Tasmania: Tel. 03 6226 7575
Northern Territory: Tel. 08 8946 7231
Dr Julie Wells is National Research and Policy Officer with the National Tertiary Education Union, which represents academic and general staff in Australian universities.