1

WOMEN IN INDIAN ACADEME: DIVERSITY,DIFFERENCE AND INEQUALITY IN

A CONTESTED DOMAINBy Prof. Karuna Chanana

THE TEXT OF THE LECTURE

I remember I used to be fascinated by the poetry ofMahadevi Verma.1 This lecture has compelled me to revisitmy memories of her poetry and life sketches of women.For a woman who was born in the year 1907, whose birthwas mourned and then to have been named Mahadevi, forher to have become a well-known literary figure and tobecome the Vice-Chancellor of Allahabad University isevidence of how she overcame the constraints of her socialcontext by combining scholarship par excellence withacademic leadership. In her literary writings she reserveda special space for the pain and exploitation of womenwhom she called the accursed from birth. One reads thestories of Sabiya, a woman who is deserted by her husbandand has to accept his second wife; of Binda, her childhoodfriend, who suffered at the hands of her stepmother; andof the child widow who is virtually under house arrest byher father-in-law. On reading these life sketches and storiesone realises that the author had internalised the pain ofwomen across communities. It seems that she was not justnarrating their experiences but living them. She was farahead of the contemporary feminists. In an interview given

1 I am grateful to Dr Renu Shah, Department of Hindi, JodhpurUniversity, for enabling me to revisit Mahadevi Verma.

2

a few months before she passed away, she was asked2

whether the education of women was responsible for crimesagainst women — rape, burning them alive, suicide, anddivorce. She said that this was an utterly falsemisconception. Education makes women aware of theirsense of self and the ability to recognise their rights. Asthis awareness becomes clear, there is bound to be struggleand all this is going to happen to women. So long as mengave women ‘equality’ and ‘independence’ as charity andon their own terms it was all right. When women definethese and demand them the way they want it there isconflict. What I am going to say today is in continuation ofher thoughts, that is, although there is change yet womenare pulled back by the status quo. Education is an aptexample of such a situation.

The Indian educational system is undergoing rapidchanges. The students in the metros and cities have anexciting range of subjects, specialisations, academicprogrammes to choose from. They provide an exciting rangeof educational and career options which are related to theexpansion of the market and occupational opportunitiesoffered by the so called globalisation. Women have also beenbeneficiaries of this expansion of educational options. Itseems that the disciplinary divide is getting blurredbecause most of the new specialisations requireinterdisciplinary training. Similarly, the divide between thefeminine and the masculine subjects also seems to begetting diffused. Young women are taking up subjectswhich do not necessarily fall into the domain of the feminine.

The greater participation of women in higher educationhas been possible for two main reasons. First, the academicachievement of girls at the school board examinations hasbeen better than those of boys. This phenomena seems tobe not limited to India alone. In fact, the lower achievementof boys is being imputed to the way schools are functioning,

2 See the interview of Mahadevi Verma by Anita Gopesh in the specialedition of Aajkal, March 2007, pp.30-32.

3

that is, schools are designed to encourage girls to achievewhereas the social reality is that if girls and boys learndifferently it has a lot to do with their socialisation at home.

Second, the improvement in their participation inschool education as well as their academic achievement isdependent on their changing aspirations as well as of theirparents, especially in the metropolitan areas. Women ofthe present generation, even though a small minority, havehigh expectations and aspirations for educational andcareer participation in the modern service drivenknowledge economy. But in the absence of hard data orstatistics it is difficult to say whether the aspirations andambitions of women are no longer gendered. However, anote of caution is in order. All groups of women are notequally represented due to the stratified nature of Indiansociety. Again, the presence of those women, who have beenentering the portals of higher education, is not reflectedproportionately or adequately at all levels.

This lecture draws heavily from my research on womenfaculty and the gendering of institutions and on the richresources provided by feminist researches on gender andeducation. Although I refer to the universities, most of whatwill be said is applicable to all the organisations, especiallyto the colleges and to the system of higher education.

Without taking an essentialist position the focus is onthe differences between women and men because genderas a category operates in the lives of all women. It alsoinfluences their experiences within the academe and theexpectations of the academe from them. At the same timeit is also critical to pay attention to the differing voices andneeds of women. Secondly, colleges and universities aresites of reproduction of the societal inequalities and theorganisational rules, regulations and procedures arepermeated by gendered attitudes and values. The thirdpremise is that there is a relationship between gender-blind(which is not necessarily gender neutral) organisationaland management practices and the differences in the careerprogress of women and men faculty. Fourth, by treating

4

women and men as equal, the system remains genderbiased and marginalises women faculty. Fifth, women’sparticipation in education is complicated by the fact thattheir social role impinges on their roles as academics.Therefore, colleges and universities as sites of learning andeducation present a complex situation for women whohave to constantly negotiate between their roles asstudents/teachers, on the one hand, and as women, onthe other.

DIFFERENCE, DIVERSITY AND INEQUALITY

Indian society is marked by tremendous diversity,difference and inequalities. For example, Indian societyis stratified in terms of religion, caste, class, rural-urbanresidence, language, and ethnicity. Similarly, women tooare stratified by the same parameters. As for example,the ability of the women to access education is dependenton whether they come from well-off homes located inthe metros and from families which place a high valueon the higher education of daughters. In addition, it alsodepends on whether the facilities for higher educationare available or not, as is the case in the remote ruralareas. In the process, multiple identities become‘subordinated identities’. Thus, different social contextscreate unequal and complex identities of women whichhave a direct impact on access, academic achievementsand outcomes.

The Indian educational system is also stratified, e.g.,good quality elite vs. poor quality and ordinary or less thanordinary institutions; affordable versus expensive ones;those located in the metros versus those in the rural areas;and public versus private. Further, there is differencebetween the public and private institutions. So far as thepublic institutions are concerned there are some exclusiveelite institutions while the majority are of poor quality. Privateinstitutions, which are very expensive, have yet to make theirmark in terms of quality. The stratification of the Indianhigher education system is further exacerbated by extreme

5

diversity of its student population. Therefore, if women areheterogeneous, the academe is also not a monolith.

Although the women’s movement began with emphasison the differences between women and men and their socialconsequences, in course of time differences among womenalso received considerable amount of attention of scholarswho questioned the concept of the ‘universal woman’ or‘womanness’. Simultaneously, another concern was toensure that commonalities are not overlooked nor areinequalities reinforced within the higher education system.Even though scholars have critiqued or deconstructed theconcept of a universal woman there is agreement thatgender is the overall and critical parameter cross cuttingall other parameters.

Difference becomes problematic when there is anevaluative dimension to it as is the case between womenand men. This evaluation of superior and inferior resultsin the denial of educational, as well as other, facilities towomen equal to those of men. And differences, diversitiesand inequalities when seen in the context of gender makefor a complex situation.

The family, home and the school provide theideological bases for inequality between women and men.It is because the socialisation process in the family alsounderlies the educational structures and organisations.Therefore, inequality which begins at home is convertedinto social and material inequality when women aresegregated in lower end, low status and low paying jobsor are paid less than men for similar jobs. Looking atwomen faculty provides an indication of the seriousnessof the commitments of the academe to equality. Thus,the educational system becomes an instrument of socialand material reproduction. Moreover, the interplay ofpower and ideology within the socio cultural context hasa negative impact on the overall educational career ofwomen. Therefore, the educational institutions becomegendered institutions thereby reinforcing the contestednature of education.

6

Education has been generally assigned contradictoryroles. For example, it has been entrusted with theresponsibility of maintaining continuity with traditionand its values. At the same time it has also been lookedupon as an instrument of promoting social mobility byremoving inequalities among the different sections ofsociety. However, for quite some time the role of educationin removing inequalities and in promoting social mobilityhas been questioned very widely. Bourdieu hasemphasised its role in reproducing inequalities as beingfar more effective than in promoting social mobility (1973).Additionally, it has also been pointed out that theeducational system, its classrooms, pedagogy,curriculum and its teachers fail to take account ofthe diversity and inequalities among the students whoenter this domain. Therefore, education has become acontested domain on account of the contrary positionsof the proponents of education as an instrument ofsocial mobility and those who stress its role inreproducing inequalities.

WOMEN IN THE ACADEME

Research on the universities has exploded two mythsrelating to higher education. The first relates to theobjectivity and neutrality of organisations. ‘There is a longtradition in sociology of viewing educational institutionsand workplaces… whose languages and social relationsmirror the principles of equal opportunity’ (Giroux1992:203). It can no longer be assumed that the basicprinciples underlying the bureaucratic organisation ofuniversities are based purely on rationality, objectivity andmerit. The second myth was that those women who canaccess higher education are the elite women from theprivileged homes and, therefore, they do not have anyproblems in the academe. However, researchers whoidentified the gendered processes and structures began tosay that higher education structures are critical to thecreation and reproduction of gender differences.

7

Again, gender equality does not mean equal numbersof women and men students in the educational institutionsor parity in the examination results. One should look athow the educational institutions operate. It should alsoinclude the position of women faculty in the universities.For example, it is by now well established that a majorityof the senior positions in the universities are held by menwhile women are concentrated at the lower rungs. Menalso hold most of the decision-making positions, namely;membership of executive, academic and administrativecommittees. Other issues and problems pertaining towomen faculty in higher education highlighted by scholarsare: dual responsibilities; their ‘invisibility’ in importantpositions and near absence in leadership positions; thegendered academy and implications for knowledgegeneration and production; and the impact of socio-culturalnorms and expectations on their professional lives.

The initial thrust of the women’s movement was onincreasing the participation of women students and facultyin higher education. Access, at that point, was consideredas central to equal opportunity. Later, it was found thateven though the number of women faculty had increasedsubstantially, their presence reduced substantially as onemoved up the ladder and they suffered in pay andpromotion. In course of time, women’s concentration inlower end faculty positions and their near absence inleadership and management positions was confirmedthrough statistics. Therefore, a pertinent question wasasked: why do women academics stagnate and remainrelatively disadvantaged when it comes to promotions andleadership positions?

Several explanations are forthcoming to explain theinqualities in the career patterns of women and men in theuniversities? For example, women move up slowly becausethey face a ‘chilly climate’ in the universities; because theygenerally enter the profession at lower levels and stay therein spite of publishing and undertaking research andacquiring doctorate degrees, i.e., even when their academic

8

profile fits in the ‘hypothetical’ paradigm of a maleprofessional. Other scholars introduced the concepts of‘the greasy pole’, the ‘glass ceiling’3 and ‘the man-centreduniversities’ or masculinist institutions, which limit careerpatterns for women. Therefore, such patterns of inequalitydemonstrate that the negative effect on women’s academiccareers is not due to lack of capability.

This understanding of the situation led to researcheson the structure and processes of the universities. It wasobserved that unless the system became gender neutralor pro-women neither access nor equal participation inleadership and management is possible. Therefore, theunderlying assumptions about the objectivity oforganisations, their structures and the place of women inthem have to be examined since the organisations are socialconstructions. It is further argued that the reality ofacademic life for women is different from the ideal ofacademic institutions and the universities do not promotemerit and equality. The paradox for women is that whilethis is the reality of the university, teaching is universallyviewed as a desirable profession for women.

Moreover, feminism has questioned the democratisingimpact of higher education. For example, the operationand processes of power at work in the academic institutionshave been highlighted. Universities are hierarchicalorganisations presumably based on democratic and liberalprinciples but in reality reproducing the patriarchalrelations of power and authority. While exploring therelationship between gender, power and academy Brooksinvestigates the gap between the model of equality andacademic fairness, on the one hand, and the sexist realityof the academy, on the other. She observes that “there isan apparent contradiction between the liberal ideology and

3 Glass ceiling blocks women’s aspirations; they can see where theymight go, but stops them from reaching there. Glass ceiling is presentin any given occupation, and in any public office. What is to underscoris that the higher the rank, status or authority, the lesser will be theproportion of women.

9

egalitarian aims of the academy, the reality of competitiveacademic careers in male-dominated hierarchies whichleads to endemic sexism and racism in defence of maleprivilege” (1997:1).

Other scholars stress the fact that men are the subjects4;who set the agenda and women are the objects in thesystem. Scholars have documented the processes,procedures and functioning of the universities on the basisof qualitative micro level studies as well as macro levelstatistics. For example, the university perpetuates sexualdivision of labour as do other institutions. This happenseven when there is no formal division of labour along genderlines in teaching, research and administration. But thenthis ungendered division of labour is used to circumventgender equality. In fact, gender equality is overlooked inthe name of gender neutrality. Not only that even this so-called gender neutrality is undermined in various ways,examples of which are given later.

What then is it to be a woman in the Academy? Howdo women negotiate the contradictions between thepersonal and the professional which have to be resolved inorder to move on as academics. They have been referred toas “ambivalent academics”. The majority of women in theuniversities are also regarded as the ‘outsiders and thedisadvantaged’, ‘the others’ or ‘double deviants’ (Baglihole1994: 15). They are double deviants because not only arethey working in the male dominated world but are alsoexpecting equal rewards. Acker and Webber describe theirposition as ‘liminal’— in the process of becoming somethingelse. They are the ‘outsiders within’ …. they are unable tobe just ‘be’: they must always be something” (2006: 486).

However, all women are not outsiders nor do they allplay subordinate roles. Although higher education isdominated by masculine values, power and masculinediscourse, yet power is not equally distributed or wielded

4 In the universities, subject generally denotes discipline, in this contextsubject is used in opposition to object.

1 0

(Davies et al 1994:4) and, therefore, all women may not beequally exploited or subordinated within the universitystructures. Some exceptional women get the positions ofleadership and responsibility by virtue of their merit andcompetence. They retain their distinctive style offunctioning and interaction without aping the men ortrying to deny their womanhood. Mahadevi Varma was anexcellent example of her public recognition as a poetesspar excellence and as a scholar. But, as I said just now,she was an exception.

Again, there are other parameters which help womenget into positions of power and leadership. As mentionedearlier, in the higher education system ‘subject’ is male,and high caste, urban middle-class, and of high socialstatus. Therefore, it is much easier for some women to gainpower and control than for most others. Again, somewomen are more privileged than the others. For example,high caste/class women in comparison to the low caste/class women.

Then there are some women, who are members ofimportant administrative and executive committees, whoare in a minority and remain ‘tokens’. Acker discussestokenism5 or the token presence6 of minorities or of womenin committees and how they are used to demonstrate thatwomen enjoy equal status. Successful women who gainpower are called tokens because they have ‘made it’ bypolitically correct networks and actions. They are used asexamples of absence of ‘glass ceiling’ or any barriers towomen’s progress within the system. They also become

5 Here Kanter’s (1977:208-209) categorisation of organisations andgroups into uniform, skewed, tilted and balanced is used. It is inthe skewed groups that ‘dominants’ and ‘tokens’ appear i.e. the fewor the token are very insignificant minority and yet are treated asrepresentatives of their category.

6 Tokenism is widely used to make the so called aggrieved groups‘visible’. The periodic announcement of schemes for women; the year2001 as the women’s empowerment year are examples of tokenismbecause the structures, the processes and the underlying assumptionsof men’s and women’s spaces and roles remains untouched.

1 1

symbols of the success of equal opportunity policies. Sincethe ‘token’ women succeed by adopting male strategiesand criteria and by identifying with the men they are,according to Sutherland ‘honorary men’. They do not liketo identify with women and are reluctant to be identifiedas women (1985: 28).

They are also unable to or do not want to change eitherthe structures or the processes within the institutions ofhigher education because they have achieved ‘success’within and in spite of the status quo and, therefore, wouldrather defend the system. Delamont (1989) talks of‘dominant and muted groups’ to explain the behaviourand actions of these women. According to her, since theybelong to a muted group they follow the dominant modeland having done so successfully do not want to move awayfrom it. Therefore, they accept the male model of theprofession and deny their identity as women academics.

According to Kanter (1977) women who are ‘tokens’ orin small ‘minorities’ fear success and have a doubledisadvantage of being invisible and extra visible. ‘Fear ofsuccess’ standpoint is contested and it is explained thatthe inability of token or successful women to recognisethemselves as powerful prevents them from supporting andbe mentors of other women (Baglihole 1994: 23 ). Somehave also questioned the mainstream definitions of‘academic success’ which affect the relationships betweenwomen and men and between women in the highereducation system.

Men academics who join colleges and universities havethe advantage of being under the tutelage and sponsorshipof male professors who are their role models and mentors.It is also easy for them to get into the ‘old boys’ networks’and to have access to these for support. The sponsorship ofthe senior men professors has a positive impact on the selfesteem and confidence of the younger men academics. Allthis helps men in recruitment and selection process. Theyare also better placed in terms of the promotion prospects;to gain research experience; to get invited to conferences

1 2

for paper presentations and ultimately for publications.Networking is the key to academic success and is difficultfor women to establish especially across gender (Chanana2003). All male networks are effective for lobbying andfacilitate exchange of critical information. They are also theplatforms for converting ‘informal visibility’ to ‘formalvisibility’, that is, securing memberships of importantcommittees and leadership roles (Chanana 2003). They arevisible in university’s academic administration at the higherlevels. Even when women are members of committees thestyle of functioning and language of discourse tend to bemale defined (Davies et al 1994).

Universities are called “homo social” institutionsbecause men dominate sex segregated institutions andexclude women from participation (Lipman-Blumen 1976in Baglihole 1994:26 ). Women are not included in theall-male formal or informal networks in the departmentsand universities thereby excluding them from national andinternational networks. No doubt women have startedestablishing the girls’ networks, yet such women are still aminority. According to Baglihole, “these experiences ofbeing in a minority with the accompanying lack of supportsystems and the difficulties of integrating into a maleworking environment influence women academics’perception of themselves and affects their careers ….Universities claim to be meritocracies…. they valuereputational status above all, which is heavily dependentupon one’s integration into formal and informal networksin academic community” (Baglihole 1994:20-21). In fact,instead of merit what matters in the system, if one wantsto get rewards and acquire status, is to know colleagues“who can provide guidance, support and advocacy to theapprentice” (1994: 20). Therefore, the intangible factorsmatter a lot within the system and since women are in aminority, on the margins and not very active participantsin the academic and administrative procedures andprocesses, they remain disadvantaged. Delamont (1989)argues that:

1 3

“It is the indeterminate aspects of occupationalperformance in elite jobs which prove elusive to women.These aspects are the ‘distinctive modes of perception, ofthinking, of appreciation and of action’, the ‘taste of agroup, its characteristic taken-for-granted view of theworld’, ‘ tacit indescribable competencies’. Without thesequalities, women’s success will be limited. They need thesame socialisation into the profession that men get frommale networks and sponsors. As it stands, ‘parts of theoccupational identity and performance are obscured fromwomen” ( 1994:20). Delamont says further that the routeto success is less likely to be through more publicationsor better research. What matters are “personal contactsthrough friendship, correspondence, visits, conferences,seminars and cooperative work with key actors” (1989 inBaglihole 1994:20).

INSTITUTIONAL AND INDIVIDUAL BARRIERS

Studies on women in academic leadership have identifiedseveral barriers. These barriers focus either on theindividual or on the structure. The first set of barriersexplains the inability of women to take advantage eitherdue to their double burden, or their socialisation or dueto intrinsic qualities such as not being able to takedecisions or wanting to take charge. Moreover, the choicesmade by women and men based on social expectations ofmasculine and feminine behaviour are seen as natural andacademically justifiable.The responsibility is placed on theindividual women to overcome the socio culturalconstraints and to succeed in the system. This approachignores the barriers to equality with their roots deep insidethe structure of higher education (Acker 1994:132). It alsooverlooks the fact that the understanding of socialisationis crucial to explain the differential position of women andmen in academia.

Studies of the structure of institutions, its functioningand processes question the assumption that universitiesare based on merit and on well-defined rules and the

1 4

principles of objectivity and rationality. The rules andprocedures are framed by those who are in positions ofpower and authority and mostly for historical reasons theyhave been men. The barriers which are most often identifiedare: men holding leadership positions; women’s lack ofpolitical savvy; women’s inability to look at their job ascareer; lack of mentoring and visibility.

One of the oft quoted barriers to women’s advancementto administrative posts is their perceived reluctance todevote more time to the job due to ‘dual careers’.7 Thisstatement assumes that men actually give or would givemore time than women to administrative work and that itis a precondition to acceptance of any administrativeposition. In a university, the headship of the departmentprovides the first level of administrative experience andleadership. Headship confers powers and authority withoutcorresponding responsibility and accountability. At leastin my university, a faculty member is just notified that sheor he will be assuming charge as chairperson or head witheffect from such and such date. The duties andresponsibilities of the head are neither defined nor speltout. The efficiency of the head is neither monitored norevaluated at the end of the term. Heads, since they weremostly male, came to the centre for a minimal time whichcould be less than one hour. Sometimes they did not evencome. Given the situation of extreme flexibility of time familyresponsibility may not even be a problem. In such asituation, how and why should it be presumed that womengive less time to the job and how many women have refusedheadship?

Shakeshaft (1989) identified the selection proceduresas barriers for women because they act as ‘filters’ to keep

7 I am familiar with cases of married women in the banking sectorwho have refused promotions which involved transfer to anothercity. One can also cite examples of married women who would refusea posting if it meant giving more time to the job. But these are nineto five jobs. The situation in the universities is different becausefaculty are not expected to be there from nine to five.

1 5

women out. These filters are: application, selection andrecruitment filters. For example, as a member of selectioncommittees, questions addressed to married women revolvearound their perceived role as homemakers. These are: ifthis job or fellowship requires moving to another city orcountry what will happen to the family and children? Haveyou taken your husband’s or family’s permission to applyfor this post? The married men are not asked similarquestions. Of course, these questions are asked with apositive intent. What is of concern is the ‘harmonious familylife’ of the candidate. But I am also aware of the fact thatthe selection committees sometimes take negative decisionson the basis of whether a married woman candidate,especially with children, would “really and actually” acceptthe job in case of a transfer. Thus, social perceptions affectuniversity practices which in turn influence the academicevaluation of women faculty.

How to tackle such a situation? The members of theselection committees, men as well as the occasional women,are taken aback when they are gently reminded that theseare gender biased questions. The alternative strategies areeither to keep quiet or ask men interviewees the samequestions that were being asked from the women. Thus,women academics in higher education are faced with thedilemma of either taking a radical position by demandingan equal place within the system and by becomingmarginalised. Or becoming tokens while the majorityremain silent spectators and actors. Examples can also becited of how considerations of status congruence affect thedecisions of the university and the selection committee topromote a husband before the wife if both of them areworking in the same department at the same rank or thewife is senior.

It is surprising that feminine responsibilities and rolesare ignored in fixing schedules and committee timingsor in providing child care support but taken intoconsideration in the least expected areas such as selectionprocedures. We begin to wonder if education can really be

1 6

the harbinger of social change. Sufficient evidence has beengathered during the last four decades or so to assert thatthe social perceptions of women as the homemakers andkeepers of the domestic realm intrude into several aspectsof the organisational procedures, functioning and work.Further, an organisational environment which isapparently gender neutral or the same for women and menis in reality unequal.

Additionally, Vice-Chancellors can use severalprovisions which allow them discretionary powers inaddition to nominating members to importantadministrative and executive committees. Nomination ofmembers and use of discretion is more often than not basedon non-academic considerations such as the ‘visibility’ ofthe faculty members, which in most cases are men. Thus,the scope to interpret the rules and the provision ofnomination and discretion contribute, in a big way, to thesocial construction of the universities.

Sometimes the internal functioning and gender neutralpractices of universities are likely to have a genderedimpact in the participation of women in the routine activitiese.g. when meetings of the academic council, and otherimportant decision-making bodies are scheduled in theafternoons and continue till late in the evening. Men aremore likely to stay on till the end and participate in thecritical decision-making process. Women members, on theother hand, may have to leave the meeting before it is overand go home to meet family demands. In such a situationthe gender neutral activities and decisions are gender blindand have a gender biased impact.

Moreover, simple explanations of gender differences inthe career profile of women and men do not explain theslow promotions of women faculty. For example, severalwomen faculty members have a stereotypical male workstyle in terms of teaching, publications and time given.This ideal or stereotype of the ‘male work style’ is based onthe research in the western countries specially in the NorthAmerican and British universities. No such study has been

1 7

undertaken in India to demonstrate that the men teachersare as professional and devote as much time as their westerncounterparts to the job. If anything, a majority of them inthe universities are notorious for being very unprofessional,not being dedicated to teaching and research, and not evencoming to the university everyday. Even then let us assumethat men teachers’ working style comes closer to the idealeven then some of the women devote comparatively moretime to professional and academic activities. Yet their careerpromotion paths have followed feminine routes, i.e.,starting as lecturers, and getting promotions after severalyears, if they were lucky to get them (there was noautomatic merit promotion until a few years back). A fallout of this was also that they retired with very low salaries(Chanana 2003).8 In sum, they are short-changed by thesystem and merit alone does not help.

But then there are also instances of gender neutralmeasures which have had unanticipated positive impacton the careers of women faculty. For example, the head orchairperson of a department until recently was appointedtill retirement. Now all the professors are entitled to becomeheads by seniority for a fixed term of 2-3 years dependingon the rules of a university. In some cases readers orassociate professors are also eligible. This was a result ofthe demand of the teachers’ unions to democratise thefunctioning of the departments. In a study of womenmanagers and leaders in the Indian universities (Indiresan,Chanana and Rohini 1995) it was found that the onlyposition of academic leadership occupied by women wasthat of the head of the department. Prior to this womenfaculty, who were generally later entrants than the men,missed this opportunity because the senior mencolleagues, once they became heads of departments, stayeduntil retirement. By then, women would also be nearing

8 I can cite examples of women colleagues who have experienced thisin JNU. Also see my article, ‘Visibility, Gender and the Careers ofWomen Faculty in an Indian University’. McGill Journal of Education,Vol. 38, No. 3, Fall 2003, pp. 381-90.

1 8

retirement. However, rotation of headship provided theopportunity of academic leadership to women. Forexample, I held this position three times. Without it, I wouldhave retired from service without holding this position.

Headship also entitles one to become ex-officio memberof several important committees. It involves networking andrequires mentoring support, something which women lack.Therefore, it is critical for them to get this position in orderto learn the ropes and become at least a ‘part insider’ inthe power games that their men colleagues play. This is inspite of the fact that they cannot be included in the informalmale networks which grow around cups of tea sharedduring office hours and drinks at home in the evenings.9

Therefore, recruiting women faculty is not enough butto recognise that the problem exists. The educationalinstitutions that control opportunity to move up maintaina double standard and perpetuate the exclusion of womenfrom worthwhile and prestigious positions. This causesgender imbalance in favour of masculine experience, inthe functioning style of administration and in recruitmentand staffing. This imbalance adversely affects women.

It is very clear that in the absence of role models,networks and support systems, women will remain at thelower end (although automatic promotion to higheracademic positions is likely to alleviate to some extent theimpact of stagnation), but without the mentors andnetworks they will be excluded from decision-making andleadership positions. The mentors and support systemsare critical for enhancing reputational status and foracademic rewards. There are no formal procedures whichwould recognise the contribution of women and ensurethat they participate fully in all aspects of the system. Theresult is that without deliberately keeping womensegregated and excluded from powerful positions theirsegregation and exclusion just happens.

9 This is typical of a residential university where I was located formost of my academic life.

1 9

Organisational culture and management practicesneed deeper analysis and understanding especially whenwomen in a variety of fields are changing the paradigmsand creating new visions of possibilities. Some of thesuccessful women in leadership roles do not fit into thestereotypes of the tokens. They reach positions ofimportance by their competence and experience. They usetheir distinctive style of leadership instead of aping thedominant male style of functioning. While these exceptionalwomen may be harbingers of a paradigm shift yet they aretoo few to change the organisational culture and structure.It is yet to be seen whether the organisations are adaptingto women’s needs or are women adapting to theorganisational structures?

WHERE ARE WE GOING? WHAT TO DO?

The agenda of the contemporary universities is beingdetermined by developments in the economy across theworld. The old universities have to compete with the newones for academic and financial survival. At this juncture,the gendered impact of changes in the higher educationsystem due to global developments on the academicprofession and on research deserve to be monitored. Forinstance, there is more emphasis on research andpublishing, dominated by men, and teaching, preferredby women, is being devalued. This development is notgender neutral. This is likely to push women further intothe background.

Evidence of devaluation of teaching vis-s-vis researchis also available from the promotion criteria identified bythe University Grants Commission and followed by mostIndian universities. For example, questions on the numberof students who have been supervised for research or thecourses taught are not taken into consideration at the timeof recruitment and promotion or even for grant of nationaland international fellowships. The focus is on publications,research projects and attendance at international

2 0

conferences — academic activities undertaken by menmore than women. Therefore, men’s contributions are morevisible through publications as well as the networks theyestablish by attending seminars, workshops andconferences at the local, national and international level.

Another critical impact of globalisation andprivatisation is the contractual and temporary nature ofthe academic profession. It is expected that theparticipation of women in this profession is going toincrease because of its ad hoc and temporary nature. Thenumber of women in the permanent jobs, which was verylow, is likely to reduce further. This is happening at a timewhen the government wants to expand the higher educationsystem and the demand for teachers is high. This is aparadox. “On the one hand, . . . we can be pulled or pushedout of institutions … (according to supply and demand)and on the other, mass higher education system needsmore teachers. Our services appear to be both more indemand and, yet, less essential” (Martin 1999: 2).

Even when denied entry and admission women triedand sought to enter the academy. Having gained entry intothe universities and overcome some of the barriers to theirpresence women have to work towards making theirpresence felt, not only by changing themselves but, rather,by changing the academy because the gender hierarchy isstill very much there and the university structures havealso not been restructured. The gendered experience ofwomen faculty also has a negative impact on the womenstudents. Therefore, universities let down both the womenstudents and the academics.

I would like to reiterate that it is unrealistic to take anessentialist position and also to conceptualise highereducation as simply ‘a man’s world’. Women’s presencecan neither be denied nor wished away. What is requiredis to challenge the perceptions which exclude women fromthe academe and to ensure that they becomes inclusive.At the same time women must be sensitive to complexsocial contexts in which women are located and to their

2 1

multiple identities and how diversity is converted todifference leading to inequality. What is needed is focussededucational research on the university structures,processes, and their ideological underpinnings which willlead to formulation of strategies to change the system.According to Minnich,

“…for the qualities that made the academy exclusive…have framed institutional structures and practices aswell…. it was good to achieve access; now, we mustmake the rooms we have entered suitable for all, notmerely for the gentlemen of the club, and not only forthe white ladies, either. If we would be fully present,we must all truly belong” (1988: 1-2).

Having said what I have said so far, I wonder what wouldhave been the reaction of Mahadevi Verma. I would addwhat she said in the interview mentioned in the beginning,‘we women have to snatch independence (azadi), no onewill give it on asking. But I would also not like to imitatethe western women’s movement with its focus on similarity.I would like to work for equality. Women should not belike men but wiser and thoughtful than them.’ However, Istill wish I could have had a tete-a-tete with her whilewriting this lecture.

2 2

REFERENCES

ACKER, SANDRA. 1994. Gendered Education: SociologicalReflections on Women, Teaching and Feminism, ModernEducational Thought Series, Open University Press,Buckingham.

ACKER, SANDRA and MICHELLE WEBBER. 2006. Women workingin Academe: approach with care. In Christine Skelton,Becky Francis, and Lise Smulyan (eds.). 2006. The SageHandbook of Gender and Education, London: Sage,pp. 486-96.

BAGLIHOLE, BARBARA. 1994. Being Different is a very difficultRow to Hoe: survival strategies of women academics. InS. Davies et al (eds.), Changing the Subject: Women inHigher Education, London:Taylor and Francis, pp.15-28.

BOURDIEU, PIERRE. 1973. ‘Cultural Reproduction and SocialReproduction in R.Brown (ed.), Knowledge, Educationand Cultural Change: Papers in the Sociology of Education,London: Tavistok.

BROOKS, ANN. 1997. Academic Women. The Society forResearch into Higher Education and Open UniversityPress, Buckingham: Open University Press.

CHANANA, K. 2000. Treading the Hallowed Halls: Womenin higher education in India, Economic and PoliticalWeekly, Vol.35, No.12, March 18, pp. 1012-1022.

CHANANA, K. 2003. ‘Visibility, Gender and the Careers ofWomen Faculty in an Indian University’. McGill Journalof Education, Vol. 38, No. 3, Fall, pp. 381-90.

DELAMONT, S. 1989. Knowledgeable Women: Structuralismand Reproduction of Elites, London: Routledge.

GIROUX, HENRY A. 1992. ‘Resisting difference: Culturalstudies and the discourse of critical pedagogy’ inLawrence Grossberg et al (eds.) Cultural Studies, NewYork: Routeledge, pp. 199-212.

INDIRESAN J., CHANANA K. and ROHINI R. 1995. Perceptionsof Educational Administrators in Institutions of HigherEducation: A Report, New Delhi: National University for

2 3

Educational Planning and Administration and ZakirHusain Centre for Educational Studies, JawaharlalNehru University.

KANTER, R.M. 1977. Men and Women of the Corporation,New York: Basic Books.

LIPMAN-BLUMEN, J. 1976. ‘Towards a homosexual theoryof sex roles. An explanation of the sex segregation ofsocial institutions’, Signs, 3, 15-22.

MARTIN, ELAINE. 1999. Changing Academics Work:Developing the Learning University, SRHE and OpenUniversity Press, Buckingham: Open University Press.

MINNICH, ELIZABETH, JEAN O’BARR and RACHEL ROSENFELD (eds.).1988. Reconstructing the Academy: women’s educationand women’s studies. Chicago: University of ChicagoPress.

SHAKESHAFT, CHAROL. 1989. Women in EducationalAdminsitration, Sage, Newbury Park.

SUTHERLAND, M. 1985. Women Who Teach in Universities,Stoke-on-Trent: Trentham Books.