Search results

A threefold approach is taken to provide understanding about the experiences that women of color have faced in their entry and upward advancement into administration in higher education institutions. The three overarching frameworks are historical, sociological, and organizational or institutional. The historical approach divides the chapter into three parts: the past (1960–1989), the present (1990–2010), and the future (2010 and beyond). Within these three time periods, major societal forces at work (during the specific time frame) will be used to help explain the extent and type of access women of color had within society's formal institutions. Since specific focus of the book/volume is on women of color in higher education, the third major tread is to reveal what and how university and colleges did to provide greater access and upward mobility for women of color or how such institutional action helped to impede.

Part I: The past shows that since and due to the Civil Rights Movement, women of color were preoccupied with access into higher education as students, faculty, and administrators. The past could rightly be termed the age of Tokenism (1960–1989). During the start, there were too few qualified women of color to be competitive for entry into faculty roles, let alone administrative positions. However, scarcity in numbers does not provide a full picture as to the slow access and low numbers. Instead, society's view was faulty, overly simplistic, and its intervention strategies hurt more than helped the situation. Particularly, the general thinking was that institutions were fair and okay, the problem lay with persons of color; they were disadvantaged in many ways, so they could not compete adequately. However, this one-sided view was biased and placed many unnecessary barriers for women of color and maintained favoritism and control for white males.

Part II: The present (1990–2010) demonstrates that progress by institutions of higher education (IHEs) to include women of color into administration was better but still unnecessarily slow and remained inadequate. While the initial strategies of affirmative action and blaming the victim for their plight were insufficient in the past, dynamics in society changed drastically in the present stage. Primarily, business in the United States, because of world competition, looked inward and out of necessity fundamentally reengineered itself. This one sweeping social dynamic caused traditionally discriminated groups to call for higher education to examine itself. In so doing, institutional racism was exposed and emphasized. No longer were women of color having to fit the white male mode for acceptance, and the customary “rites of passage” were questioned and altered, along with other practices. With a larger qualified pool of women of color due to past efforts, and to a larger extent a more level playing field in higher education, women of color enhanced their status. More importantly, the stage is now set for a much brighter future.

Part III: The future promises to be better for all: women of color, higher education, future generation of students, and society. Even though the conditions higher education institutions are facing are more difficult and the negative trends likely to persist, women of color can make great advances provided they capitalize on the events and assume some different roles. Specifically, it is proposed that women of color should actualize their natural leadership styles of participatory and transformational; they act as agents of change; and make a concerted effort to mentor and network younger women of color. Underlining the promise of a better future is that women of color know how to overcome hardships and they are better able to redesign institutions, change outdated practices, and shape the future of IHEs to fit the new paradigms. To date, on a microlevel this is what they have done to be personally successful, surely they can work on the macrolevel to make for stronger and effective IHEs.

This chapter examines the lack of diversification in higher education administration and specifically focuses on the scarcity of women of color in formal, high-level positions of leadership at predominantly White Institutions (PWIs) in the United States. Four main questions fuel the discussion: (1) What theoretical definitions are useful for understanding the social constructed meanings of women of color? (2) How does the concept of stereotypes contribute to the underrepresentation of women of color in higher education administration? (3) How do leadership paradigms and subsequent theories influence perceptions of leadership? and (4) What leadership paradigms and theories better address the exclusion of women of color from decision-making positions of leadership in higher education and therefore take into consideration dimensions of diversity and the changing face of leadership?

Research indicates that faculty of color in the United States face numerous challenges in the academy. To complicate their experiences further, children significantly impact academics’ work. Additional difficulties can arise in balancing work with familial responsibilities. Indeed, strategies to navigate parental obligations while engaging in professional activities are seldom examined among minority parents, across genders and institution types. In response, the current study investigates the intersectionality of race, gender, and parenthood on navigating a work–life balance in academia. This study examines 13 male and female minority parents from an array of institutions and explores their strategies for navigating professional advancement while managing familial obligations.

Our data suggest that parents of color often develop timesaving strategies to complete their work more efficiently. However, in order to do so, they tend to engage in professional and social isolation and to recalibrate personal expectations of work and accomplishments. Of importance, the study uncovered significant gender differences. While fathers faced comparable challenges, the findings indicate that familial responsibilities can disadvantage women more so by impacting their ability to foster professional relationships and potentially harm their emotional well-being. While most faculty of color face difficulties in the workplace, we argue that those with children, especially mothers, face additional challenges that should be addressed by home institutions to foster more equitable opportunities for professional growth.

The role gender plays in academia has provided unique experiences and challenges for women (Hill, Leinbaugh, Bradley, & Hazler, 2005). Inequalities in salary, as well as promotion and tenure, are issues women in higher education have had to endure since their entrance into the academy. For women of color there is an additional layer to their struggles that is predicated on the impact of race and ethnicity, all synergistically affecting how women of color enter, negotiate, and are retained within academia. This chapter explores themes around the issues that require women of color to subjugate the self to succeed and find acceptance in academia. This chapter illuminates the unwritten rules that often decide the fate of women faculty of color; as well as how women of color are navigating the intersection of race and gender in academia. Feminist theoretical approaches and narrative inquiry have been employed to draw out themes from the stories of eleven women of color who currently or previously held academic positions.

Much of the research on the experiences of faculty of color makes clear the barriers such faculty face in academe. The research on women of color, while considerably less developed than that of faculty of color in general, is quite similar in pointing out the obstacles such women face in academe. Such literature does, however, seek to offer perspectives on how sexism intersects with racism to create a particularly unique context for women of color. Reporting on narratives from women of color as they relate to the research criterion in the promotion and tenure process, I seek to offer insights into how the academy traffics in race narratives, which constrains the options faculty women of color might have, but in doing so, paradoxically, open up spaces for these women to challenge social inequalities. The aim of this chapter is to move beyond the very linear notion of racism and sexism common in the literature on women of color and toward an understanding of the interplay between academic structures (i.e., the academic roles required of women of color) and individual agency (i.e., what women do with and because of these roles) in how one might account for the roles that race and gender play in academe.

The purpose of this paper is to examine identity intersectionalities of age, ethnicity, and gender among US professional women of color working in upper management as they challenge the glass ceiling in order to change organizations from the inside out.

Featured are narratives of 36 midlife‐aged, middle‐class African‐American, Asian‐American, and Hispanic women who have built careers in mediated message industries. Feminism and Foucauldianism provide theoretical underpinning.

The findings illuminate how midlife‐aged women of color paradoxically resist and accept master narratives of “less than” in striving to change organizations and achieve their maximum potential. Organizational glass ceilings remain impenetrable, but women of color are optimistic that benefits of diverse upper‐level managements ultimately will be embraced. Moreover, overlapping public and private spheres continue to further complicate career advancement.

Method‐inherent limitations include recognizing that narratives are not generalizable but serve as a point of departure for future study. Implications for theory building are offered, as well as ongoing research suggestions – such as probing intra‐group differences and expanding dialog to include other unique identity groups.

Of key import for public policy decision making are research participants' voices – how, as beneficiaries of socio‐political movements and legislation spanning nearly five decades, they still seek to negotiate organizational hierarchies and balance public and private work spheres.

Heretofore, little scholarly attention has focused on midlife‐aged women of color and glass ceiling barriers in conjunction with monitoring organizational change. This exploratory study was designed to address the gap; encouraging policymakers and organizational leaders to consider these women's unique identities and experiences.

The purpose of this paper is to describe a mentoring program developed at a large predominantly white research university that was aimed at retaining and advancing women faculty of color. The ADVANCE Scholar Program pairs each scholar for two years with a senior faculty member at the university who serves as an internal advocate, and with an eminent scholar outside the university who helps the scholar gain prominence in their discipline.

This paper offers a case study of the ADVANCE Scholar Program. The authors describe the intersectional approach to organizational change in this conceptual framework and provide a brief overview of the institution and precursors to the development of the Scholar program. The authors describe the program itself, its rationale, structure and participants in the program.

Overall, the program generated a positive reception and outcomes, and the authors suggest that such a program has the potential to make a positive difference in making the university a more supportive place for a diverse professoriate and recommend it as a model for adoption at other predominantly white research universities.

By publishing the operations and the outcomes of this faculty mentoring program, we expect to contribute broadly to a more supportive campus climate for a diverse professoriate. We have developed, implemented, and continue to study this successful model to retain minoritized faculty scholars in the professoriate.

Women faculty of color are often assigned to serve on committees to meet diversity objectives of the institution and are sought after by students of color from across the university, but this service is not considered. This program, the ADVANCE Scholar Program, pairs each scholar with a senior faculty member who serves as an internal advocate, and an external eminent scholar who guides the scholar in gaining national prominence. These efforts to retain and promote minoritized faculty scholars, altogether, have important implications on the pervasive issues affecting many members of academic communities at the individual, interpersonal and the institutional levels.

This case study provides an innovative strategy to tackle the lack of role models and the experiences of social isolation that occurs for women faculty of color with multiply marginalized status. Hence, women faculty of color benefit from a valuable, institutionally supported, university-wide mentoring program designed to increase diversity of minoritized faculty in the professoriate ranks.

Education policies in the United States reinforce social stratification by prioritizing and normalizing middle-class whiteness in schools (Leonardo, 2007; Picower, 2009). The teacher labor market has also become more feminized, making white middle-class women paragons of exemplary educators (Rury, 1989; Tolley & Beadie, 2006). These sociopolitical and historical factors continue to play out in the current U.S. education workforce where 80% teachers are white and 76% of teachers are female (Hussar et al., 2020). Meanwhile, student demographics are shifting with students of color comprising over 50% of the public student population (de Brey et al., 2019). Diversifying the educator pipeline is a well-documented strategy to improve educational outcomes for all students, specifically students of color, and to achieve greater equity and inclusion in public education. However, the retention and promotion of educators of color remains a critical and complex issue.

Thus, looking at the intersection of race and gender in the education workplace, the purpose of this chapter is to highlight the experiences and expertise of women K-12 educators of color to identify best practices for career development. Applying Psychology of Working Theory (PWT) and utilizing modified meta-synthesis methodology, the chapter highlights the experiences of Black, Latinx, Asian American, and Indigenous/Native American women K-12 principals and superintendents to (1) thematize and conceptualize how women of color define their work in education spaces through a PWT lens and (2) understand how PWT themes can illuminate ways to build more diverse and inclusive career pathways for women of color leaders.

The hiring of women of colour faculty is not without unwritten presuppositions. The authors are expected to tolerate racism and to draw from cultural experience in catering to students of colour or when it fulfils institutional needs such as bringing ‘colour’ to all-white committees. Yet, the normative profile of university teachers demands detachment with a focus on high output in terms of students and publications. In the light of this, commitment to social justice seems to be in (certain) disagreements with mainstream interpretations of the academic profession. Women of colour professors are redefining educational leadership. This chapter addresses its effect on emotional wellbeing together with techniques and strategies to strengthen emotional resilience.

Given the demographic shift in American society, higher education institutions are faced with the challenge to prepare students for a diverse society. Efforts to diversify the gender, racial, and ethnic makeup of faculty and administrators in universities show promise but institutional challenges threaten such progress. In this chapter, the author explores the breadth and scope of scholarship on the trends impacting women of color in higher education. Two major areas are the focus of analysis: (1) transformation of higher education since the passage of Title IX. Widely associated with athletics and now celebrating 40 years since its enactment, Title IX has been instrumental in creating access for women of diverse ethnic and racial background. Historically, Title IX is credited with closing the gender gap in higher education; but has it really?; and (2) dismantling structural and social barriers that threaten authentic inclusion of women of color. The interlocking effects of gender, race, and ethnicity can compound pressures of the workplace environment for women of color (Turner, 2002). Coupled with that are climate issues that can create an uninviting or hostile environment for women of color in faculty or administrative positions. The diversification of women of color in higher education has important implications for policy and practice, and raises important questions about institutional commitments.