Navigating the academic Labyrinth: describing the landscape of women faculty in hospitality higher education

Abstract

Purpose

The purpose of the study was to describe faculty women’s perspectives of the workplace environment in hospitality higher education.

Design/methodology/approach

Female faculty members in hospitality (n = ∼50) completed an online survey about their beliefs about women’s experiences, advancement characteristics the glass ceiling and gender equity.

Findings

Respondents concurred that being self-directed, assertive and a risk-taker were essential; leadership is the most important characteristic for advancement and the glass ceiling is prevalent and prominent. It may be assumed that the milieu of academia would be free or freer of the glass ceiling, but research, including this study, suggests otherwise. Glass ceilings persist even in organizations with explicit policies promoting equality in advancement. Research participants identified raising awareness about the glass ceiling and its presence within academic institutions as crucial. However, for initiatives to be effective, they must be supported authentically and unwaveringly by top administrators, including both male and female leaders.

Originality/value

The findings underscore both progress and persisting disparities, shedding light on the need for targeted efforts to improve inclusivity and gender equity within academia in hospitality management. These findings contribute to the ongoing discourse on fostering a more diverse and equitable landscape in higher education, particularly within the field of hospitality.

Citation

Way, K.A., Mason, C. and Garrison, M.E.B. (2024), "Navigating the academic Labyrinth: describing the landscape of women faculty in hospitality higher education", International Hospitality Review, Vol. ahead-of-print No. ahead-of-print. https://doi.org/10.1108/IHR-03-2024-0016

Introduction and literature review

Faculty members are the essential core of a college or university, embodying the institution’s values and serving as key role models and mentors for students. To fulfill this role for all students, diversity within the faculty is deemed crucial, intensifying the ongoing efforts to diversify faculty ranks, including with respect to gender, is an imperative for American higher education (Flaherty, 2017). Not to be overlooked is the contribution that a diverse faculty brings to higher education, particularly in terms of diversity of thought and an appreciation of multiple perspectives. Diversity of thought leads to more robust decision-making as it considers a wider array of potential outcomes and solutions. Engaging with viewpoints different from one’s own fosters a more inclusive and innovative environment. It encourages critical thinking and problem-solving by challenging assumptions and broadening understanding. Additionally, appreciating multiple perspectives cultivates empathy and respect, essential qualities for effective collaboration and community building. In essence, embracing diverse viewpoints enriches our experiences and enhances our collective progress.

Throughout the years, pivotal events in the USA have reshaped the roles of women in business and education. Between 1870 and 1930, the percentage of women in professional occupations increased from 5 to 14%, only to decline during the Great Depression. By 1950, only 10.8% of professionals were female, with a predominant representation of white males in elite occupations (Parker, 2015). Despite women earning more than 50% of all master’s degrees since 1987 (Parker, 2015), this educational achievement is not fully reflected in positions such as professors and administrators. Women constitute the majority of nontenure-track lecturers and instructors at institutions, yet they represent only 44% of tenure-track faculty and 36% of full professors. Approximately 30% of college presidents are women, despite women holding over 50% of department head positions. Additionally, women comprise only about 30% of college board members. Women continue to earn less than men across all faculty ranks and most leadership positions within institutions. Higher education administrators face an approximate 20% gender pay gap, while college presidents experience a pay gap of less than 10% (AAUW, 2024).

According to the International Council of Hotel, Restaurant and Institutional Education’s (ICHRIE) (2024) membership directory, there are currently only 33 women nationwide serving in administrative and upper-administrative roles in hospitality education. This is a disquieting statistic, especially considering that women comprise 51% of the workforce in the hospitality sector, according to Power (2023) – one of the few industries where women are the majority. The upper ranks of hospitality leadership, however, tell a different story. Only 30% of leaders in the sector are women, and for every female chief officer, there are three men that hold the same title.

Female faculty have long encountered expectations, such as being perceived as assigning lower workloads and awarding higher grades than their male counterparts (Bennett, 1982). Deviating from these expectations can result in more negative judgments for women (Sinclair & Kunda, 2000). In the business realm, women often face barriers that can impede their progress. Internal obstacles, including self-doubt and the “speak-only-when-called-on” approach (Hymowitz, 2013), are challenges that women grapple with. For almost 20 years, research has underscored the notion that “women encounter more obstacles as faculty in higher education than they do as managers and directors in corporate America” (West & Curtis, 2006, p. 4) and work in what Bird (2011, p. 202) refers to as “incongruous, gendered bureaucratic structures.”

The behaviors exhibited by women in the workplace and classroom play a significant role in shaping others' perceptions of them. Women, more than men, faculty may face harsh ratings if they are not readily available to students (Merritt, 2008), requiring them to juggle multiple demands and expectations. Managing authority poses a particular challenge for women, especially in academia, where students may exhibit less fear and respect for their female instructors, leading to a higher likelihood of authority challenges (Lazos, 2012). Statham, Richardson, and Cook (1991), who observed interactions between women and male faculty, found that women are challenged in class at least 10% more often than their male counterparts. This challenge is even more pronounced for women in lower positions within academia.

The career advancement of women tends to progress at a slower pace than that of men, particularly when aspiring to top-level positions. Valian’s (1998) inquiry into the scarcity of women in powerful and prestigious roles raises questions about the impact of gender differences or “schemas,” on how women fit into their roles and are perceived by others. Valian’s research has been reinforced more recently by Spoon et al. (2023), who analyzed a census of 245,270 tenure-track and tenured professors at US-based Ph.D.-granting departments and found women remain underrepresented among faculty in nearly all academic fields and leave academia at higher rates than men at every career stage. This gendered attrition is particularly pronounced at lower-prestige institutions, in non-STEM fields and among tenured faculty, which in turn has led to a progressive increase in men’s faculty representation in administrative positions. Furthermore, despite diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives at higher education institutions both inside and outside of the USA, research has shown that men and women continue to experience disparities in professional advancement (Thomas et al., 2023).

In spite of progress made in recent decades, the recruitment, advancement and promotion of women in academia remain insufficient. Women constitute a large portion of the academic talent pool and earn more than 50% of all doctoral degrees. Yet this has not translated into sustained representation in faculty and leadership positions (Cardel et al., 2020). Research has indicated that women face numerous barriers, including perceptions of lower competence and quality of work, implicit bias in teaching evaluations and grant funding decisions and lower citation rates, throughout their careers, which either removes them from academia or hinders their promotion (Spoon et al., 2023; Thomas et al., 2023).

The construct of the “glass ceiling” serves as a critical theoretical frame for examining barriers to advancement faced by women and minorities in professional environments (i.e. academia). It is a metaphorical invisible barrier that prevents these groups from achieving higher-level positions, despite having the necessary qualifications and experience. Utilizing the glass ceiling as a theoretical framework can provide a more comprehensive understanding of the structural, attitudinal and organizational factors that contribute to this phenomenon (Jackson & O’Callaghan, 2009; Purcell, MacArthur, & Samblanet, 2010).

The glass ceiling for women in academia is a global challenge, hindering their advancement and representation in higher education institutions worldwide. Despite progress in gender equality efforts, women continue to encounter systemic barriers that impede their professional growth and limit their access to leadership positions (Aziato, Iddrisu, Attafuah, Pwavra, & Ohene, 2020; Bird, 2011; Filandri, Pasqua, & Priori, 2023; Heinrichs & Sonnabend, 2023). Research has revealed disparities in academic rank, salary, funding opportunities and recognition between male and female academics in numerous countries around the world (Chacha, 2021; Serap, 2021; van Veelen & Derks, 2022). Discriminatory practices, implicit biases and cultural norms contribute to this phenomenon, reinforcing stereotypes and undermining women’s contributions to scholarship (Aziato et al., 2020; Chacha, 2021; Filandri et al., 2023; Serap, 2021; van Veelen & Derks, 2022). Studies indicate that women are 18% less likely to receive promotions than their male counterparts (Krivkovich, Robinson, Starikova, Valentino, & Yee, 2017). The ongoing advocacy for women in higher education has unequivocally communicated to the next generation of women the enduring presence of the glass ceiling, vividly highlighting the substantial distance yet to be covered for women in the professional world – a domain often perceived as predominantly male-oriented (Elias, 2018). Addressing the glass ceiling requires united efforts to dismantle structural inequalities, foster mentorship and sponsorship programs and cultivate a supportive environment that values equitable representation in academia on a global scale.

The glass ceiling is not the result of a single factor but rather an intricate web of gender, race, poor mentorship and organizational dynamics that collectively create barriers to advancement. Each of these factors contributes uniquely to the creation and endurance of invisible barriers that prevent women and minorities from ascending to top-tier positions within organizations. Gender discrimination is a primary component of the glass ceiling, rooted in societal norms and stereotypes about gender roles. Women often face implicit biases that question their leadership capabilities, resulting in unequal treatment and opportunities, including, but not limited to, stereotypes and biases, work–life balance and pay inequality (Liff & Ward, 2001; Morgan & Pritchard, 2019; Remington & Kitterlin-Lynch, 2018). Racial discrimination compounds the challenges faced by women of color, creating a more impenetrable glass ceiling. The intersection of race and gender results in unique obstacles that are often overlooked in mainstream discourse (Bloch Taylor, Church, & Buck, 2021; Gee & Peck, 2018; Laurison & Friedman, 2024). Mentorship plays a critical role in career development (Brown, 2005), yet women and minorities often have limited access to mentorship opportunities compared to their white male counterparts (Liff & Ward, 2001; Williams et al., 2019). Additionally, organizational practices and culture significantly influence the persistence of the glass ceiling (Bird, 2011). While companies and academia have made significant progress in implementing diversity policies, enhancing recruitment and promotion practices and improving corporate culture, it is important to recognize that structural and cultural elements within organizations can still either facilitate or impede the advancement of women and minorities (Liff & Ward, 2001; Morgan & Pritchard, 2019; Remington & Kitterlin-Lynch, 2018; Williams et al., 2019).

Although progress has been made, albeit sometimes with fits and starts, in the state of women in higher education, it is evident that the playing field remains unequal in terms of gender, advancement and leadership. Using a glass ceiling theoretical lens, the purpose of the study was to describe faculty women’s perspectives of the workplace environment in hospitality higher education. The specific research objectives addressed were (1) beliefs about women in higher education (RO1); (2) necessary characteristics for advancement (RO2) and (3) beliefs about glass ceilings and gender equity (RO3).

Methodology

The study sample comprised female faculty members in the field of hospitality within higher education. An online survey was developed and conducted to address the study’s research objectives.

Participant selection

Through faculty listings on university websites, a convenience sample of female faculty from all four-year public universities in the states that comprise the Southeastern Conference (SEC) in the US was utilized to recruit participants. This approach aimed to ensure a broader representation of experiences, considering factors such as geographical location, institutional type and academic rank. Following IRB approval, the participants were invited to participate in the study voluntarily and with their consent, emphasizing the importance of their perspectives in shaping the future of higher education in hospitality.

Survey instrument

As part of a larger project, a questionnaire was developed for this study based on the extant literature (Butler, 2019; Curtis, 2004; Garza, 2019; Mccutcheon & Morrison, 2016) and the results of a focus group comprising three female hospitality faculty members and two female hospitality graduate students. The focus group was used to assess the content validity and clarity of the survey. In broad terms, the survey asked about faculty women’s perspectives about higher education, including their beliefs about women’s experiences, advancement characteristics and the glass ceiling and gender. Questions about demographic information were also included.

Variables, their measurement and data analysis

Beliefs about women in higher education were measured by respondents’ level of agreement with 18 items based on theirs and other women’s faculty experiences. The items asked about beliefs including both inner and outer-originated beliefs, such as feeling pressure to fit in or fewer training opportunities for women.

Characteristics necessary for advancement were measured by the respondents’ rating of their importance, ranging from 1 to 10 of 10 items. These items included characteristics such as leadership, honesty, industry experience and intuition.

Beliefs about the glass ceiling and gender equity were measured by respondents’ level of agreement with 15 gender equity-related statements, including two specifically about the glass ceiling. Other statements asked about diversity, pay gaps, motivation and self-discipline and job loss.

The data were analyzed using SPSS by conducting a frequency analysis. Results, including the demographic characteristics of the sample, are reported in percentages.

Findings

Description of the sample

Out of the 216 surveys emailed to the participants, 75 were returned and 48 were considered usable, yielding a response rate of 35%. The demographic profile of the respondents reflects a representative sample within the US hospitality education sector, particularly age, educational attainment, salary and industry experience. Most respondents reported less than five years of experience (36%), and participants spanned across academic ranks, including instructors (12), assistant professors (15), associate professors (10), full professors (two) and administrators (five), offering a more complete view of experiences at different career stages. Out of the participants who responded, only two indicated that they served in an administrative role, specifically in hospitality education (Table 1).

RO1.

Beliefs about being female in hospitality higher education

Of the 18 items related to RO1, the range of agreement was from 21% (fewer training opportunities for women) to 89% (having a clear idea of your own career goals). For 11 of the 18 items, at least half of the respondents agreed with the statement (Table 2). Two of the most agreed-upon items were about being assertive and taking personal risks. Respondents also agreed that assertiveness is not without consequences, albeit with a lower level of agreement. The majority of participants affirmed the importance of having a mentor or a source of moral support, coupled with a lack of sufficient mentoring. Notably, there was a very narrow margin in the level of agreement among participants who reported insufficient meaningful feedback or reviews about their professional strengths and weaknesses. Most participants believe that they can not make mistakes and learn from them without jeopardizing their job or future, and a little more than half indicated experiencing challenges in establishing credibility among their peers.

A majority of respondents also concurred that there exists an inequality in the power dynamics between male and female faculty in hospitality higher education, particularly when occupying the same position, suggesting a belief among respondents that males in equivalent academic ranks wield more influence due to their gender. Moreover, a substantial portion of participants acknowledged experiencing pressure to conform to the prevailing culture, with more than half of respondents reporting instances of feeling like outsiders at various points in their careers.

Female respondents expressed disagreement with the notion that there are fewer professional development training opportunities for them compared to men. The majority of women in their careers found international assignments to be readily accessible, with no apparent gender bias influencing the allocation of such assignments. Obtaining job assignments with bottom-line responsibility was perceived as not difficult by most respondents, and a majority disagreed with the idea that men were held to a higher standard than women in the context of higher education.

RO2.

Characteristics necessary for advancement

Of the 10 items inquiring about the essential qualities for success as female faculty in hospitality education, respondents identified one item, leadership, as the most important and crucial characteristic for advancement (Table 3). In addition, intuition was deemed very important by more than half of the respondents, followed by creativity and communication skills. Honesty, industry experience and commitment were all equally valued and important. The prominence of leadership and intuition suggests that the emphasis on leadership development in higher education is not merely institutional but also resonates strongly with the respondents themselves.

RO3.

Beliefs about the glass ceiling and gender equity

Of the 14 statements about the glass ceiling and gender equity, the percent agreed ranged from a low of 19% (I have lost a job based on my gender) to a high of 77% (I believe the glass ceiling exists in higher education), with a respondent agreement level of at least 50% for more than half of the 14 statements (Table 4). A significant majority of participants affirmed the presence of a glass ceiling within their institution. In the context of women in hospitality higher education, most respondents reported encountering the justification “that’s just how it’s done” at their institution justifying appointments or decisions. Another prevalent sentiment among respondents was agreement with the statement “little diversity at the top,” indicating either personal observation or familiarity with this perception. The apparent lack of diversity in higher administration raises concerns, reflecting a scarcity of women and minorities in prominent positions within higher education. This inadequacy can potentially demotivate female and minority faculty, particularly in an environment where interest in transitioning to upper administration is limited. A notable 63% of women acknowledged a persistent resistance to innovation or change in higher education. The agreement with the statement “Progress is impossible without change” suggests that female faculty in hospitality higher education perceive their universities as making decisions similar to those of the past few decades, despite a substantial increase in faculty demands for promotion, tenure, teaching, research and service during the same period.

Furthermore, 64% of the surveyed women confirmed that they were assigned additional tasks either due to the glass ceiling or because of their gender. Although 81% of the study’s participants expressed disagreement about having lost a job based on their gender with this statement, the 19% who did experience job loss due to gender need to be acknowledged, particularly as it underscores the persistence of this practice. Until this percentage is zero, studies about the glass ceiling remain pertinent.

Conclusions and implications

This study focused on women in higher education within the hospitality management field and yielded insightful findings. The findings underscore both progress and persisting disparities, shedding light on the need for targeted efforts to enhance inclusivity and gender equity within the hospitality management academic realm. These findings contribute to the ongoing discourse on fostering a more diverse and equitable landscape in higher education, particularly within the field of hospitality.

In this study, revealed persistent barriers to advancement for women in hospitality education were revealed. The results underscored the findings from the literature review, highlighting the significant role of implicit biases, a lack of mentorship opportunities and organizational cultures that fail to prioritize diversity and inclusion (Brown, 2005; Liff & Ward, 2001; Remington & Kitterlin-Lynch, 2018; Heinrichs & Sonnabend, 2023; van Veelen & Derks, 2022; Williams et al., 2019). These findings align with the theoretical framework, which posits that the glass ceiling is maintained by a combination of structural and attitudinal barriers within organizations. The limited representation of women in administrative roles, as indicated by only two participants in such positions, illustrates the ongoing impact of these barriers. This study contributes to the existing body of research by providing more empirical evidence about gendered beliefs, the glass ceiling’s presence and reinforcing the need for comprehensive strategies to address these systemic issues, such as those related to characteristics needed for advancement.

The imperative to bridge the gender gap is evident for the success of universities, particularly in relation to faculty diversity. This study emphasizes the need for universities, especially in leadership roles, to diversify their faculty composition. Respondents highlighted the importance of having mentors and expressed a desire for more substantial professional feedback from their leaders. Establishing mentorship relationships could potentially alleviate the stress faculty members endure while providing valuable guidance for their present and future roles. Mentoring programs should be institutionalized, prioritized and incentivized. In conclusion, the persistent presence of the glass ceiling in academia represents a significant global issue that undermines the principles of equity, diversity and inclusivity in higher education. Addressing this challenge requires approaches that extend beyond geographical boundaries and cultural contexts. By encouraging and promoting inclusive environments, implementing policies that promote gender equity and challenging systemic biases and stereotypes, universities can incite the full potential of their academic communities. Embracing varied perspectives and ensuring equal opportunities for all genders not only enhances scholarship but also encourages innovation and societal progress. As the world advances toward a future where talent and expertise are recognized and valued without regard to gender, it is imperative to continue advocating for change and building a more equitable and inclusive academic landscape for generations to come.

Limitations and future research

In this study’s exploration of perceptions about experiences, it is possible that respondents may not have answered some questions truthfully. Participants may have opted for responses they deemed professionally acceptable or socially desirable rather than entirely truthful. Participants may have underreported or downplayed their experiences of discrimination or barriers they faced, as discussing such issues can carry risks to one’s career advancement, resulting in possible repressed responses.

Additionally, the survey’s approach to inquiring about the glass ceiling may not have sufficiently encouraged respondents to share on a more personal level. It should also be noted that a limitation of conducting research on the glass ceiling is the potential for subjective interpretation and the difficulty in quantifying its effects. The glass ceiling is a metaphorical concept representing invisible barriers that prevent certain demographic groups, typically women, from reaching higher levels of leadership or success within organizations. As such, measuring the impact of the glass ceiling can be challenging due to its intangible nature and the multitude of factors that contribute to it, including implicit biases, systemic discrimination and socio-cultural norms.

Further investigation is warranted to broaden the sample size of this study, encompassing female hospitality faculty across various regions of the USA as well as globally. Such a radius would promote the generalization of findings. Moreover, there is a need for a study to explore departments on university campuses where a majority of faculty members are female.

The participants emphasized the importance of assertiveness for female faculty members to progress in higher education and overcome barriers like the glass ceiling. It’s crucial to delve deeper into the factors motivating women to adopt assertive behaviors. Moreover, the term “assertive” may encompass various interpretations, necessitating further exploration. A qualitative study could be instrumental in clarifying the significance and objectives of assertiveness within academia. Additionally, examining the correlations between mentors, feedback mechanisms, tenure and success rates could provide valuable insights into this context in studies with a larger sample size than the current one.

In the current landscape, it is crucial for women to realize this reality and navigate collaborative efforts with men and women to optimize both professional and personal accomplishments. It is also imperative for both men and women to harness and combine their strengths collaboratively, fostering a team-oriented approach that can significantly enhance overall workplace performance. The glass ceiling as a theoretical framework continues to provide, somewhat unfortunately, a robust foundation for examining the complex and multifaceted barriers to advancement faced by women. This framework not only sheds light on the systemic nature of the workplace but also informs the development of more equitable and inclusive organizational practices.

Table 1

Demographic profile of participants

	21–31 years old	32–42 years old	43–53 years old	54–64 years old	65+ years old
Education
Master’s degree	3	1	7	6	1
Doctor of philosophy	0	9	10	5	0
Doctor of education	0	2	3	0	0
Marital status
Single	4	4	4	5	0
Married	4	7	19	8	1
Ethnicity
White	6	6	18	8	1
Asian	1	5	3	0	0
African American	1	0	2	4	0
Salary
$20,000–40,000	0	0	0	1	0
$40,001–60,000	3	1	6	0	1
$60,001–80,000	0	6	6	2	0
$80,001–100,000	0	3	3	5	0
$100,001–120,000	0	1	3	1	0
$120,001 +	0	0	2	2	0
Industry experience
None (0)	0	3	2	3	0
1–5 years	2	3	7	1	0
5–10 years	0	3	3	2	0
10–15 years	3	4	5	1	1
15–20 years	0	1	4	1	1
20+ years	0	0	4	4	1

Source(s): Table by authors

Table 2

Beliefs about being female in hospitality higher education

Item	Agreed (%)
Having a clear idea of your own career goals	89.20
Being assertive is important	82.90
Taking personal risks	80.90
Feeling pressure to fit it in or adapt to the culture	72.30
Moral support and encouragement from your mentor or administration when distressed	72.30
Not enough mentoring	66.00
Feeling like an outsider	59.60
Not comfortable asserting views because of possible consequences	57.40
Women do not have the same power as men when holding the same leadership position	55.30
Not having a senior manager who facilitates career progress	53.20
Credibility with your peers	51.00
Not receiving enough meaningful feedback	48.90
Access to the right people	46.80
Can’t make mistakes and learn from them without threatening job or future	38.30
Men hold you to a higher standard	31.90
Difficultly getting access to job assignments with bottom line responsibility	29.70
Difficulty getting international assignments	27.70
Fewer training opportunities for women	21.20

Source(s): Table by authors

Table 3

Characteristics necessary for advancement

Item	Most important 1 (%)	2 (%)	3 (%)	4 (%)	5 (%)	6 (%)	7 (%)	8 (%)	9 (%)	Least important 10
Leadership	60	7	15	7	5	0	3	3	0	0
Patience	0	11	5	13	13	20	7	13	15	3
Honesty	7	22	11	11	11	15	7	11	3	3
Industry experience	7	22	0	5	15	5	7	20	3	17
Ability to delegate	3	0	5	17	15	20	11	17	7	5
Communication	5	28	26	9	9	13	5	5	0	0
Confidence	15	15	20	11	3	11	13	5	5	3
Commitment	3	22	11	5	17	7	13	11	9	3
Creativity	0	43	5	5	5	5	15	7	5	13
Intuition	0	54	3	0	7	5	5	9	15	0

Source(s): Table by authors

Table 4

Glass ceiling and gender equity beliefs

Item	Agreed (%)
I believe the glass ceiling exists in higher education	77
There’s little diversity in the top positions in higher education	74
I believe the glass ceiling exists at my institution	66
There are illogical pay gaps between male and female faculty	65
As a female faculty member, I feel I must take on extra assignments, particularly those that are high-profile	64
There’s resistance to innovation and change, especially over the long term	63
The phrase “that’s just the way things are done here” is used to justify appointments or decisions	62
As a female faculty member, I make a point of bonding with upper administration at my university	51
My university fosters an air of equality between male and female faculty at every level of the institution	51
In my role as a female faculty member I feel I must become a part of the administrative network, even if it feels a bit too “boys club”	49
It’s hard for female faculty to get senior leaders' time, and there are limited opportunities for mentoring from senior personnel	45
Sexist, racist and other prejudicial language is common in higher education but people excuse it as “banter”	32
Women are considered less motivated and less disciplined than male counterparts	24
I have lost a job based on my gender	19

Source(s): Table by authors

Declaration of interest statement: The authors report that there are no competing interests to declare.

Data availability statement: The studies involving human participants were reviewed and approved by the Division of Research, Research Integrity and Compliance, University of Arkansas (2002246972). The patients/participants provided their written informed consent to participate in this study.