Women's Access to Higher Education Leadership: Cultural and Structural Barriers.

The Labor Force 2008 projections reflected that the rate of growth for women in the labor force will increase at a faster rate than that of men (Fullerton, 1999). In 2008, the majority of employed women (39 percent) worked in management, professional, and related occupations (U.S. Department of Labor, 2008). Although women’s participation in the U. S. labor force has increased, and women occupy 44 percent of management jobs in American companies, top management ranks remain dominated by men (Powell, 1999; U. S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1998). Goodman, Fields, and Blum (2003) refer to the exclusion of women from top managerial positions as evidence of a glass ceiling. A glass ceiling is defined as “. those artificial barriers based on attitudinal or organizational biases that prevent qualified individuals from advancing upward in their organizations into managerial-level positions” (U.S. Department of Labor, 1991, p. 1). This glass ceiling is evident in the supposedly progressive world of higher education. While women have made significant inroads into the senior leadership of American higher education, parity for women presidents has yet to be reached. In 2006, the percentage of college presidents who were women represented 23 percent which more than doubled the 10 percent of women college presidents in 1986. However, the rate of change has slowed since the late 1990s. These trends suggest that higher education institutions have been slow to expand opportunities for women to enter senior leadership (American Council on Education, 2007). This research focuses on the exclusionary practices and lack of access to higher education leadership for women. It is argued that attitudinal and organization biases against women in higher education tend to exclude women from upper-level leadership positions. Therefore, from a social justice perspective, the researcher will examine cultural and structural conditions and practices that create barriers to and opportunities for the advancement of women in higher education leadership. Introduction The 2007 report of the American College President Study Series, conducted by the American Council on Education (ACE), described the changes in the presidency during the past 20 years. Highlights of the findings of this 20 th Anniversary Edition of the American College President Study related to gender disparity revealed that the percentage of presidents who were women more than double from 10 percent in 1986 to 23 percent of the total in 2006. This percentage suggests that the higher education institutions have been slow to expand opportunities for women (American Council on Education, 2007). Forum on Public Policy 2 The profile of women presidents was also described in the American Council of Education report. Three significant comparisons were discussed: institutions served, career path and length of service, and family circumstances. In reference to institutions served, it was reported that women were more likely to head associate colleges, followed by baccalaureate colleges and master’s colleges and universities. The largest increase in the percentage of presidents who were women represented 8 percent of presidents in 1986 and 29 percent of presidents in 2006. The largest increase of women-held presidencies since 1986 was at public institutions. Specifically, in 2006, women held 34 percent of the presidencies at public baccalaureate colleges, 30 percent at public special focus institutions, and 29 percent at public associate’s colleges. In relations to career path and length of services, women presidents in 2006 had spent less than their male counterparts in their current positions—an average of 7.7 years for women compared with 8.8 years for men. In addition, women were more likely than their predecessor in 1986 to have previously served as presidents or provosts. Women presidents were more likely than their male counterparts to have earned a doctorate. In relation to family circumstances, 89 percent of the male presidents were married compared with 63 percent of female presidents. In addition, more women presidents reported they were divorces, separated, or widowed 19 percent in 2006 compared with 16 percent in 1986. In 2006, only 5 percent of male presidents were divorced, separated, or widowed (American Council on Education, 2007). The data from the American Council on Education 2007 report show that women continue to increase their ranks of colleges and universities leadership; however, the gains have been slow. This report confirmed that the impending retirements among presidents, the rapidly changing economic demographics, and political condition of the current environmental climate suggest the need for adaptability and diversity in education institutions and their leaders; however, the report failed to address ways to increase the number of women ascending to the presidency. According to Title IX: A Sea Change in Gender Equity in Education (1997), “women now make up the majority of students in America’s colleges and universities in addition to making up the majority of those receiving master’s degrees. Indeed, the United States stands alone and is a world leader in opening the doors of higher education to women (Title IX: 25 Years of Progress, 1977, Para 4). Bradley (2000) echoed this fact by noting that women’s representation in colleges and universities throughout the world is increasingly approaching the gender parity of 50 percent. Additionally, the U.S. Census Bureau reported today more women than men are expected to occupy college professor’s positions, as they represent 58 percent of young adults, age 25 to 29, who hold an advanced degree (U.S. Census Bureau News, 2010). Kaplan and Tinsley (1989) concluded, “More women are in colleges and universities, in professional schools—all poised to leap into positions of power in upper leadership” (p. 18). However, Kaplan and Tinsley (1989) reminded us that upper leadership in higher education Forum on Public Policy 3 administration has a pyramidal structure and women are clustered at the bottom of the pyramid. Consequently, women are far more likely to be associate deans, directors, deans, vice presidents or provosts. Perhaps the most disappointing aspect of the current status of women in higher education leadership is that concern for these issues is no longer on the agenda of the leaders of our profession. The Commission on Women in Higher Education of the American Council of Education recently issued its report setting forth a new agenda for women. Paradoxically, the Bell Commission and the Friday Commission charged with making recommendations on the broader agenda for higher education, have chosen to ignore any comments on the unfinished agenda for women (Kaplan & Tinsley, 1989). Call it a glass ceiling, glass wall, or a glass floor, there appears to be a barrier blocking senior women leaders in higher education from ascending to the presidency (Clark, 2006). This glass ceiling appears to be a form of discrimination affecting women in higher education and is an important area of study identifying women’s lack of access to power and leadership status in higher education administration. The term “the glass ceiling” refers to invisible or artificial barriers that prevent women from advancing past a certain level (Federal Glass Ceiling CommissionFGCC, 1997; Morrison & von Glinow, 1990). The glass ceiling is a problem that many women in higher education leadership encounter, invisible barriers, created by “attitudinal and organizational prejudices”, which block women from senior executive positions (Wirth, 2001, p. 1). According to Dominici, Fried, and Zeger (2009), women under representation in academic leadership positions raises the questions about root causes for the persistence of gender inequity at the highest ranks of academic leadership. However, fewer studies have formally probed the experiences of women occupying the positions of presidents, vice presidents, chancellors, and provost to allow their voices to be heard in reference to this phenomenon called the glass ceiling. Purpose of the Study and Research Questions For the purpose of this paper, it is argued that certain attitudinal and organization biases against women in higher education administration leadership exist and tend to block women’s access to higher education leadership. From a social justice perspective, the researcher examined barriers, as well as opportunities, that women leaders in higher education encountered in their career paths to the presidency, the highest leadership position in higher education. The research questions guiding this study are: (a) What cultural and structural conditions and practices posed barriers for you in obtaining your current position of leadership? (b) What cultural and structural conditions and practices have created opportunities for you in obtaining your current position of leadership? (c) What was your career path to this current leadership position? and (d) What mentoring experiences have you had? Forum on Public Policy 4 Theoretical Framework A social justice perspective frames this study. The definition of social justice is a shifting concept. It depends upon the context in which it is used. Within the context of education, Adams, Bell and Griffin (1997) defined social justice as a process and a goal: The goal of social justice education is full and equal participation of all groups in a society that is mutually shaped to meet their needs. Social justice includes a vision of society in which the distribution of resources is equitable all members are physically and psychologically safe and secure. The process of attaining the goal of social justice should be democratic and participatory, inclusive and affirming of human agency and human capacities for working collaboratively to create change. (p. 4). A social justice perspective allows one to emphasize moral values, justice, respect, care and equity. The cruc