A q method study on gender (in)equality in faculties of education in turkey: “The glass ceiling is everywhere!”

Year 2024, Volume: 11 Issue: 1, 227 - 246, 01.01.2024

Burcu Sel , Mehmet Arif Bozan

https://doi.org/10.17275/per.24.14.11.1

Cited By: 1

Abstract

Gender inequality manifests itself in academia as in every field. Although the number of female academics has increased quantitatively compared to previous years, there is not enough research on the state of gender inequality today. This study, which aims to reveal how the concept of gender equality (GE) is experienced by academics working in faculties of education in Türkiye, is designed as Q methodology. The participants of this study were selected using maximum variation and snowball sampling, and they were consisted of fifteen academicians working in faculties of education. In addition, it was aimed to ensure diversity by paying attention to the fact that some of the participants were working in public universities and some in foundation universities. The data were obtained because of the participants' evaluation of the items in the Q set. In addition, semi-structured interviews were conducted to determine the participants' views on extreme values. The PQMethod 2.35 statistical program was used to analyze the data in the Q items, and content analysis was used for the data obtained from semi-structured interviews. It was observed that the views of the participants were grouped under two factors; socioeconomic and cultural factors that form the basis of gender inequality (GI) in Türkiye were emphasized, and in this context, social change and legal regulations were suggested as the antidote to GI.

Keywords

gender equality, Q methodology, higher education.

References

• Adak, N. (2018). Women in the academy: Access to higher education and career advancement. Akdeniz Kadın Çalışmaları ve Toplumsal Cinsiyet Dergisi [Mediterranean Journal of Gender and Women’s Studies (KTC)], 1(1), 23-38. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/ktc/issue/37170/425631
• Atlama, S., & Özsoy, C. (2009). Educational gender gap: The comparative analyze of Turkey. Uluslararası Bilgi, Ekonomi ve Yönetim Kongresi [International Congress of Information, Economy and Management], 63-77.
• European Commission (2019). She figures 2018. Retrieved from https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/9540ffa1-4478-11e9-a8ed-01aa75ed71a1/language-en.
• Cantù, F. (2001). Women in science: The Italian legislative and institutional framework for gender mainstreaming. In Maxwell, L., Slavin, K., & Young, K. (Ed.), Proceedings of the European Commission Gender & Research Conference.
• Caprile, M., Danièle, M., , S., and Vallès, N., (2011). Introduction to the special issue. gender and science: Old challenges, new approaches. Brussels Economic Review 54(2-3), 108-129. https://econpapers.repec.org/article/bxrbxrceb/2013_2f108933.htm
• Council of Higher Education (2023). Academic staff statistics. Retrieved from https://istatistik.yok.gov.tr/
• Demir, F. & Kul, M. (2011). Q method, a modern research method for perception, attitude, characteristics, typology, content analysis and research. Adalet Publishing.
• Dennis, K. E. (1986). Q methodology: Relevance and application to nursing research. Advances in Nursing Science, 8(3), 6-17. https://doi.org/10.1097/00012272-198604000-00003
• Diezmann, C. M., & Grieshaber, S. J. (2010). Gender equity in the professoriate: A cohort study of new women professors in Australia. Retrieved from https://eprints.qut.edu.au/45886/
• Dikmen, N., & Maden, D. (2012). A research on invisible labour of women academicians: Example of Ordu University. İstanbul Ticaret Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi [Istanbul Commerce University Journal of Social Sciences], 11(21), 257-288. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/sobiadsbd/issue/11354/135712
• Dugger, K. (2001). Women in higher education in the United States: II statistics. International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, 21(1/2), 131-142. https://doi.org/10.1108/01443330110789646
• Ecevit, Y. (2020, 13 February). Toplumsal cinsiyetle yoksulluk ilişkisi nasıl kurulabilir? Bu ilişki nasıl çalışır? [How can the relationship between gender and poverty be established? How does this relationship work?]. Retrieved from: https://kadinsavunmasi.org/toplumsal-cinsiyetle-yoksullukiliskisi-nasil-kurulabilir-bu-iliski-nasil-calisilabilir-yildiz-ecevit/.
• Flood, M. (2015). Men and gender equality. In M. Flood, & R. Howson (Ed.), Engaging men in building gender equality. Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
• Gender Equality Monitoring Association UNDP Turkey Office (2022). Türkiye’nin Toplumsal Cinsiyet Eşitliği Performansı 2000-2019 [Turkey's Gender Equality Performance 2000-2019]. Retrieved from https://dspace.ceid.org.tr/xmlui/bitstream/handle/1/2036/UNDP-TR-TURKEY-GENDER-EQUALITY-PERFORMANCE-TR.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
• Günindi Ersöz, A. (2016). Gender sociology. Anı Publishing.
• Harford, J. (2018). The perspectives of women professors on the professoriate: A missing piece in the narrative on gender equality in the university. Education Sciences, 8(2), 50-67. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci8020050
• Harmon, O., Hopkins, B., Kelchen, R., Persky, J., & Roy. J. (2018). The annual report on the economic status of the profession. Retrieved from https://www.aaup.org/sites/default/ fles/ARES_2017-18.pdf.
• Helman, C. G. (1990). Culture, health and illness (2nd Ed.). Wright/Butterworth.
• Herrington, N., & Coogan, J. (2011). Q methodology: An overview. Research in Teacher Education, 1(2), 24-28. https://doi.org/10.15123/uel.8604v
• Hobson, B., Fahlén, S., & Takács, J. (2014). A sense of entitlement? Agency and capabilities in Sweden and Hungary. In B. Hobson (Ed.), Worklife balance: The agency and capabilities gap (pp. 57–91). Oxford University Press.
• Kadir Has University Gender and Women's Studies Research Center (2019). Gender (in)equality in higher education in Turkey 1984-2018. Retrieved from: https://gender.khas.edu.tr/sites/gender.khas.edu.tr/files/inline-files/Turkiyede%20Yuksekogretimdeki%20Cinsiyet%20Esitsizligi.pdf.
• Karakuş, H. (2016). Leaky pipelıne an analysis on female academics in Turkey. The Journal of Academic Social Science Studies, 53, 533-536. http://dx.doi.org/10.9761/JASSS3635
• Karasu, M., & Peker, M. (2019). Q yöntemi: Tarihi, kuramı ve uygulaması. Türk Psikoloji Yazıları, 22(43), 28-39. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2019-46138-003
• Lee, B. S. (2017). The fundamentals of Q methodology. Journal of Research Methodology, 2(2), 57-95. http://dx.doi.org/10.21487/jrm.2017.11.2.2.57
• Lindberg, L., Riis, U., & Silander, C. (2011). Gender equality in Swedish higher education: Patterns and shifts. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 55(2), 165-179. https://doi.org/10.1080/00313831.2011.554697
• Löther, A. (2019). Is it working? An impact evaluation of the German “Women professors program”. Social Sciences, 8(4), 1-18. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci8040116
• Majcher, A. (2002). Gender inequality in German academia and strategies for change. German Policy Studies/Politikfeldanalyse, 2(3), 221-235. https://spaef.org/article/860/Gender-Inequality-in-German-Academia-and-Strategies-for-Change
• Mason, M. A., Nicholas H. W., & Marc G. (2013). Do babiesmatter? Gender and family in the ivory tower. Rutgers University Press.
• Millar, J. D., Mason, H., & Kidd, L. (2022). What is Q methodology? Evid Based Nurs, 25(3), 77-78. https://doi.org/10.1136/ebnurs-2022-103568
• Momsen, J.H. (2004). Gender and development. Taylor & Francis e-Library.
• Morley, L. (2005). Sounds, silences and contradictions: Gender equity in British Commonwealth higher education. Australian Feminist Studies, 20(46), 109-119. https://doi.org/10.1080/0816464042000334573
• Myers, R. M., & Griffin, A. L. (2019). The geography of gender inequality in international higher education. Journal of Studies in International Education, 23(4), 429-450. https://doi.org/10.1177/1028315318803763
• National Science Board (2001). Kadınlar İçin Fakülte Ödülleri, Kadınlar İçin Araştırma Planlama Hibeleri, Kadınlar İçin Kariyer Gelişimi, Kadınlar İçin Profesyonel Fırsatlar [Faculty Awards for Women, Research Planning Grants for Women, Career Development for Women, Professional Opportunities for Women]. Retrieved from https://search.nsf.gov/search?query=gender+equality&affiliate=nsf&search=
• Nyoni, W. P., He, C., & Yusuph, M. L. (2017). Sustainable ınterventions in enhancing gender parity in senior leadership positions in higher education in Tanzania. Journal of Education and Practice, 8(13), 44-54. https://iiste.org/Journals/index.php/JEP/article/view/36996
• Okay, N. (2007). An overview of the current situation of female academics in engineering and science departments in Turkey and in the world. Cumhuriyet Bilim Teknik [Cumhuriyet Science Technical], 289, 1-3. https://web.itu.edu.tr/~okayn/WomenCBT07.pdf
• Özbilgin, M., & Healy, G. (2004). The gendered nature of career development of university professors: The case of Turkey. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 64(2), 358-371. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2002.09.001
• Özkanlı, Ö. & White, K. (2009). Gender and leadership in Turkish and Australian universities. Equal Opportunities International, 28(4), 324-335. https://doi.org/10.1108/02610150910954782
• Özkanlı, Ö. (2007). The situation of academic women in Turkey. Education and Science, 32(144), 59-70. http://egitimvebilim.ted.org.tr/index.php/EB/article/view/823
• Özkaplan, N. (2013). Women academicians: Glass ceilings are still too thick!. Journal of Women's Studies, 12, 1-23. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/iukad/issue/739/7979
• Öztan, E., & Doğan, S. N. (2015). Gender of the academy: University and gender through the example of Yıldız Technical University. Çalışma ve Toplum [Labor and Society], 3(46), 191-222.191-221. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/ct/issue/71789/1155193
• Previte, J., Pini, B., & Haslam‐McKenzie, F. (2007). Q methodology and rural research. Sociologia Ruralis, 47(2), 135-147. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9523.2007.00433.x
• Rolleri, L. A. (2013). Understanding gender and gender equality. Research Facts and Findings. Retrieved from https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/document?repid=rep1&type=pdf&doi=d624ddf86a0e904abae38fc56716897075e64733
• Rosa, R. (2022). The trouble with “work–life balance” in neoliberal academia: a systematic and critical review, Journal of Gender Studies, 31(1), 55-73. https://doi.org/10.1080/09589236.2021.1933926
• Schiebinger, L. (2002). European women in science. Science in Context, 15(4), 473-481. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0269889702000613
• Shemmings, D. (2006). ‘Quantifying’qualitative data: an illustrative example of the use of Q methodology in psychosocial research. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 147-165. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp060oa
• Stenner, P., Watts, S., & Worrell, M. (2017). Q methodolohy. Willig, C., & Rogers, W. S. (Eds.). 212-237. In the SAGE handbook of qualitative research in psychology (pp: 212-237) Sage.
• Su, R., & Rounds, J. (2015). All STEM fields are not created equal: People and things interests explain gender disparities across STEM fields. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 1-20. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00189
• Subrahmanian, R. (2005). Gender equality in education: Definitions and measurements. International Journal of Educational Development, 25(4), 395-407. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedudev.2005.04.003
• Şentürk, B. (2015). Nonethemore: An essay on female academics in Turkey. ViraVerita E-Dergi, 2, 1-22. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/viraverita/issue/22434/240070
• Taylor, M. M., & Özkanlı, Ö. A. (2013). Gender and academic careers in Portuguese and Turkish higher education institutions. Education and Science, 38(169), 346- 356. http://egitimvebilim.ted.org.tr/index.php/EB/article/view/2300
• TEDMEM (2017). Eğitim değerlendirme raporu [Education evaluation report]. Retrieved from https://tedmem.org/download/2017-egitim-degerlendirme-raporu?wpdmdl=2564&refresh=5e8db66cd29821586345580.
• The World Economic Forum (2019). The global gender gap report. http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_GGGR_2020.pdf.
• Toffoletti, K., & K. Starr (2016). Women academics and work-life balance: Gendered discourses of work and care. Gender Work & Organization 23(5), 489–504. https://doi.org/10.1111/gwao.12133
• United Nations Development Program (2020). Turkey Gender Equality Strategy 2017-2020. Retrieved from https://www.tr.undp.org/content/turkey/tr/home/library/corporatereports/gender-strategy-2017-2020.html.
• VanDerwarker, A. M., Brown, K. M., Gonzalez, T., & Radde, H. (2018). The UCSB gender equity Project: Taking stock of mentorship, equity, and harassment in California archaeology through qualitative survey data. California Archaeology, 10(2), 131-158. https://doi.org/10.1080/1947461X.2018.1535791
• Watts, S., & Stenner, P. (2005). Doing Q methodology: theory, method and interpretation. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 2(1), 67-91. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088705qp022oa
• Watts, S. & Stenner, P. (2012). Doing Q methodological research: Theory, method, and interpretation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
• Winchester, H. P.M., & Browning, L., (2015). Gender equality in academia: a critical reflection, Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 37(3), 269-281. https://doi.org/10.1080/1360080X.2015.1034427
• Woronuik, B. (2001). Gender equality and peace building: operational framework. Retrieved from https://reliefweb.int/report/world/gender-equality-and-peacebuilding-operational-framework
• Yıldız, S. (2018). Türkiye’de kadın akademisyen olmak [Being a woman academician in Turkey]. Yükseköğretim ve Bilim Dergisi [Journal of Higher Education and Science], 8(1), 29-40. https://doi.org/10.5961/jhes.2018.245
• YÖK (2019). Instructor statistics. Retrieved from https://istatistik.yok.gov.tr/
• Zabala, A., Sandbrook, C., & Mukherjee, N. (2018). When and how to use Q methodology to understand perspectives in conservation research. Conservation Biology, 32(5), 1185-1194. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.13123
• Ziegler, B. (2001). Some remarks on gender equality in higher education in Switzerland. International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, 21, 44-49. https://doi.org/10.1108/01443330110789556