Just 1%of UK professors are black. Only 28% are female. The numbers do not lie – across higher education, significant inequalities affect women and members of ethnic minority groups. They impact entry to academia, job security and career progression. There is widespread recognition of the need to address these inequalities, and the Athena Swan and Race Equality Charters support institutions’ cultural transformations. While it is important to focus on structural change, equally we must examine how to challenge and change everyday micro-practices. These small, often seemingly insignificant actions of individuals – for example, selecting a recruitment panel, or helping earlycareer researchers develop their networks – cumulatively (re)produce social structures. Some differences in how these micropractices operate are obvious, others nuanced; outcomes may be different from the intention. All contribute to the accumulation of disadvantage and privilege, with unequal gendered and racialised outcomes. Across UK higher education, they favour white British men, facilitating their career progression and reproducing their sector dominance. DISADVANTAGE AND PRIVILEGE We spoke to 10 senior academics with UK business school backgrounds. There was an even split of men and women, with half identifying as white British, and half from other ethnicities. We asked about their career development, with a particular emphasis on aspects related to diversity characteristics; experiences with equality, diversity, inclusion and respect (EDIR); and any perceived facilitators or barriers they encountered. We examined three types of micropractices that constitute structures of inequality in business schools: • Promotion to academic and leadership positions; • Receiving support through networking, mentoring and sponsoring; • Supporting others through challenging exclusion or discrimination. From our interviews, we can consider the career experiences of three senior business school leaders – one a white British male, the other a woman, one a black male. Their stories are collated from our interview narratives, and tell us about the differences they encounter. A SMOOTH PASSAGE First, let us take our white British male professor. We will call him John. John always finds promotion processes straightforward and supportive – speaking of certainty, clarity, a conviction that there is a direct link between performance and promotion. ‘Shoulder-tapping’ has been key to his progress. Promotion processes are informal, including one situation where he neither applied for a role, nor realised he was being interviewed. He admits the experience was ‘probably not very EDIR’. John has a network of colleagues providing nurturing and support. He is part of the drinking culture at conferences, and benefits from subsequent opportunities. His experience confirms a culture where alcohol consumption is accepted, even encouraged. It is important to the ‘academic boys' club’, exclusionary of women – not invited, or unable to attend – and of ethnic minorities, especially where religious or cultural reasons mean alcohol consumption is not acceptable. John has benefitted from ‘hands-on’ mentoring from other white British men. His mentor co-authors his papers, supports him to the extent of ‘sponsoring’ – providing highly-involved help in obtaining employment and promotion. John moved university after being asked by his sponsor. John has encountered instances of discriminatory micro-practices, and is aware not tackling themmakes him complicit. He realises he should challenge practices, say ‘that’s bang out of order, mate!’, but does not. NOT SO FAST Gina is a non-British woman. For her, the promotion process is vague, with moving goalposts, 36 |
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy NTI5NzM=