Akademideki Cam Tavanlar, Kurbana Dayatılmış Özşüphe ve İmposter Fenomeni: Kadın Akademisyenlerin Anlatıları

Abstract

Amaç: İmposter fenomeni (sahtekârlık olgusu), başarılı kadın akademisyenlerin başarılarını içsel faktörlere değil dışsal faktörlerle açıklamaya çalıştıklarını ve kadınların sahip oldukları pozisyonu hak etmedikleri ile ilgili yaşadıkları yoğun bir kaygı durumu olarak tanımlanmaktadır. Kurbana dayatılmış öz-şüphe ise; genellikle bir kişinin diğer bir kişiye kendi yargısını empoze etmesi olarak tanımlanmakta ve bu empoze, birey için acı verici ruhsal çatışmaları içermektedir. Diğer yandan cam tavan terimi ‘nitelikleri veya başarıları ne olursa olsun, azınlıkları ve kadınları kurumsal merdivenin üst basamaklarına yükselmekten alıkoyan, görünmeyen ama aşılamaz engel’ olarak tanımlandığı görülmektedir. Bu araştırma nitel araştırma yöntemi ile derinlemesine görüşme (mülakat) kullanılarak yapılmıştır. Çalışma Lefke Avrupa Üniversitesi’nde eğitim faaliyetlerinin sürdürüldüğü 11 Fakülte, 5 Yüksekokul ve Hazırlık Okulu akademik personeli araştırmanın evrenini oluşturmaktadır. Yöntem: Çalışma verileri Mart-Haziran 2023 tarihleri arasında toplanmış, araştırmaya katılmaya davet e-posta yolu ile gönderilmiş. Katılıma gönüllü olduğunu bildiren 5 kadın akademisyen ile bire bir yarı-yapılandırılmış görüşme formu kullanılarak sorular sorulmuş, onamları ile birlikte ses kayıtları alınmış ve daha sonra araştırmacılar tarafından yazıya dökülmüştür. Yarı-yapılandırılmış görüşme formunda, katılımcıların yaş, medeni durum, çocuk sayısı gibi bazı sosyo-demografik bilgilerinin yanı sıra cam tavanlar, sahtekârlık olgusu ve kurbana dayatılmış öz şüphe algıları ve deneyimleri ile ilgili sorulardan oluşmaktadır. Yazıya dökülen bu veriler içerik analizi yöntemi ile incelenmiştir. İçerik analizi yöntemi ile önceden belirlenen kategoriler altında katılımcıların vermiş olduğu yanıtlar incelenmiştir. Bulgular: Araştırma bulguları, kadın akademisyenlerin iş-yaşam dengesini kurmakta zorlandıklarını, özellikle evlilik ve çocuk sahibi olma konusunda akademik kariyer planlarının örtüşmediğini katılımcıların ya evlilik/çocuk ya da akademik kariyerlerindeki gelişimlerini erteleme kararı almak zorunda kaldıklarını ifade etmiştir. Diğer yandan, kadın akademisyenlerin özellikle yönetici konumuna geldikten sonra sahtekârlık olgusu yaşadıkları bir durum olarak ifade ettikleri görülmüştür. Akademisyen kadınların çevrelerine bağlı olarak bazı işleri yanlış/eksik ya da yetersiz bir şekilde yaptıklarını düşünerek yaptıkları, işleri tekrar kontrol etme ihtiyacı duydukları ya da çok çalışarak mükemmeliyetçi tutumlar takındıkları ve diğer bireylerden bu gibi geri bildirimler almamak için çaba sarf ettikleri de ortaya çıkmıştır. Sonuç: Katılımcıların, cam tavan algı ve yaşantıları ile ilgili cinsiyetlerinden dolayı herhangi bir ayrımcılığa uğramadıklarını ancak özellikle kraliçe arı sendromu olgusuna maruz kaldıklarını göstermektedir. Katılımcılardan elde edilen bulgular ilgili alan yazın ışığında tartışılmıştır. Anahtar kelimeler: kadın, akademisyen, cam tavan, sahtekârlık, kurbana dayatılmış öz-şüphe

Keywords

• kadın
• akademisyen
• cam tavan
• sahtekarlık
• kurbana dayatılmış öz-şüphe

Glass Ceilings, Gaslighting and Imposter Phenomenon in Academia: Narratives of Female Academics

Abstract

Aim: The imposter phenomenon is defined as a state of intense anxiety that successful women academics attempt to explain their success with external factors, not internal factors, and that women do not deserve the position they hold. Gaslighting is often defined as the imposition of one's judgment on another person, and this imposition involves psychological conflicts that cause pain for the individual. On the other hand, the term glass ceiling seems to be defined as 'the invisible but insurmountable obstacle that prevents minorities and women, regardless of their qualifications or achievements, from rising to the upper rungs of the institutional ladder'. This research was conducted using qualitative research method, employing in-depth interviews. The academic staff of 11 Faculties, 5 Schools and Preparatory Schools where educational activities are carried out at the European University of Lefke constitute the population of the research. Method: The data were collected between March and June 2023, and the invitation to participate in the study was sent via e-mail. Questions were asked using a face-to-face semi-structured interview form with 5 women academics who reported that they volunteered to participate. Audio recordings were made with their consent. The semi-structured interview form consists of some socio-demographic information of the participants such as age, marital status, number of children, as well as questions about glass ceilings, the imposter phenomenon, and the perceptions and experiences of gaslighting. The interviews were transcribed by the researchers, and these transcribed data were examined by content analysis method. With this method, the answers given by the participants under the predetermined categories were examined. Results: The findings of the research stated that women academics face challenges establishing a work-life balance, with their academic career plans often conflicting, particularly regarding marriage and having children. Participants reported having to decide between postponing their academic career development or pursuing marriage and parenthood. On the other hand, it has been observed that women academics express the imposter phenomenon as a situation they experience, especially after they become managers. It has also been revealed that participants, influenced by the environmental feedback, start to think that they do things incorrectly/incompletely or inadequately, they need to double-check their work, or they adopt perfectionist attitudes by working hard and try not to receive such feedbacks from other individuals. The findings suggest that the participants did not feel discriminated against due to their gender regarding their perception and experience of the glass ceiling, but rather they were especially exposed to the phenomenon of queen bee syndrome. The findings obtained from the participants were discussed in the light of the relevant literature. Key words: women, academician, glass ceiling, Gaslighting, imposter phenomenon

Keywords

• women
• academician
• glass ceiling
• gaslighting
• imposter phenomenon

References

1. Abramson, K. (2014), “Turning up the lights on gaslighting”, Philosophical Perspectives, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 1-30.
2. Adak, N. (2018). Akademide kadınlar: Yükseköğrenime giriş ve kariyerde ilerleme. Akdeniz Kadın Çalışmaları ve Toplumsal Cinsiyet Dergisi, 1(1), 23-38.
3. Adkins, K. C. (2019). Gaslighting by crowd. Social Philosophy Today, 35, 75-87.
4. Aurangzeb, W., Abbasi, M. N. S., & Kashan, S. (2023). Unveiling the Impact of Gaslighting on Female Academic Leadership: A Qualitative Phenomenological Study. Contemporary Issues in Social Sciences and Management Practices (CISSMP), 2(3), 1-15.
5. Arkonaç, S.A. (2017). Psikolojide Söz ve Anlam Analizi, Niteliksel Duruş. Hiperyayın, İstanbul.
6. Bailey, A. (2020). On Gaslighting and Epistemic Injustice: Editor's Introduction. Hypatia, 35(4), 667-673.
7. Bakioğlu, A., & Ülker, N. (2018). Career barriers faced by Turkish women academics: Support for what?. Yükseköğretim Dergisi, 8(3), 313-321.
8. Barton, R., & Whitehead, J. A. (1969). The gas-light phenomenon. The Lancet, 293(7608), 1258-1260.

9. Benschop, Y. and Brouns, M. (2003), “Crumbling ivory towers: academic organizing and its gender effects”, Gender, Work and Organization, Vol. 10 No. 2, 194-212.
10. Bernard, N. S., Dollinger, S. J., & Ramaniah, N. V. (2002). Applying the big five personality factors to the impostor phenomenon. Journal of Personality Assessment,78, 321–333.
11. Calef, V., & Weinshel, E. M. (1981). Some Clinical Consequences of Introjection: Gaslighting. The Psychoanalytic Quarterly, 50(1), 44–66.
12. Castro, D. M., Jones, R. A., & Mirsalimi, H. (2004). Parentification and the impostor phenomenon: An empirical investigation. The American Journal of Family Therapy, 32(3), 205-216.
13. Clance, P.R. ve Imes, S.A. (1978). The Impostor Phenomenon in High Achieving Women: Dynamics and Therapeutic Intervention, Psychothrapy, Theory, Research and Practice, 15(3): 241-247.
14. Clance, P. R., Dingman, D., Reviere, S. L., & Stober, D. R. (1995). Impostor Phenomenon in an interpersonal/social context. Women & Therapy, 16(4), 79-96.
15. Clark, M., Vardeman, K., & Barba, S. (2014). Perceived inadequacy: A study of the imposter phenomenon among college and research librarians. College & Research Libraries, 75(3), 255-271.
16. Coogan, P. A., & Chen, C. P. (2007). Career development and counselling for women: Connecting theories to practice. Counselling Psychology Quarterly, 20(2), 191–204.
17. Cope-Watson, G., & Betts, A. S. (2010). Confronting otherness: An e-conversation between doctoral students living with the Imposter Syndrome. Canadian Journal for New Scholars in Education/Revue canadienne des jeunes chercheures et chercheurs en éducation, 3(1).
18. Coser, L. (1974) Greedy Institutions: patterns of undivided commitment (New York, Collier Macmillan).
19. Currie, J., Harris, P., & Thiele, B. (2000). Sacrifices in greedy universities: are they gendered? Gender and Education, 12(3), 269-291.
20. Dapiton, E. P., Quiambao, D. T., & Canlas, R. B. (2020). Parenting as a Moderating Factor for Research Productivity and Worklife Balance: Evidence from Philippine Women Academics. European Journal of Educational Research, 9(4), 1425-1434.
21. David, A., Joan, M. H., Ovadia, S., & Vanneman, R. (2001). The glass ceiling effect. Journal of Social Forces, 80(2), 655-681.
22. Deem, R. (2003), “Gender, organizational cultures and the practice of manager-academics in UK universities”, Gender, Work and Organization, Vol. 10 No. 2, 239-59.
23. Demir, O. Ö. (2011). Nitel Araştırma Yöntemleri, (Editör), Kaan Böke. Sosyal Bilimlerde Araştırma Yöntemleri. İstanbul. Alfa Yayınları, 275-306.
24. Demir, S. (2019). A structural model on the role of perceived multi-dimensional social support in attitudinal variables. European Journal of Educational Research, 8(2), 607-616.
25. Derks, B., Van Laar, C., & Ellemers, N. (2016). The queen bee phenomenon: Why women leaders distance themselves from junior women. The Leadership Quarterly, 27(3), 456-469.
26. Dimitrova, D. (2021). The women in situation of gaslighting–risk identification in the work environment. European Journal of Public Health, 31(Supplement_3), ckab165-327.
27. Ellemers, N., van den Heuvel, H., de Gilder, D., Maass, A., & Bonvini, A. (2004). The underrepresentation of women in science: Differential commitment or the queen bee syndrome? British Journal of Social Psychology, 43, 315–338
28. Faniko, K., Ellemers, N., & Derks, B. (2021). The Queen Bee phenomenon in Academia 15 years after: Does it still exist, and if so, why?. British Journal of Social Psychology, 60(2), 383-399.
29. Fuegen, K., Biernat, M., Haines, E., & Deaux, K. (2004). Mothers and fathers in the workplace: How gender and parental status influence judgments of job‐related competence. Journal of Social issues, 60(4), 737-754.
30. Graves, C. G., & Samp, A. J. (2021). The power to gaslight. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 1–9.
31. Hailes, H. P. (2023). " They're Out to Take Away Your Sanity": An Ecological Investigation of Gaslighting in Intimate Partner Violence (Doctoral dissertation, Boston College).
32. Harvey, J. C., & Katz, C. (1985). If I'm so successful, why do I feel like a fake?: The impostor phenomenon. New York: St. Martin's Press.
33. Hayes, S., & Jeffries, S. (2016). Romantic terrorism? An auto-ethnography of gendered psychological and emotional tactics in domestic violence. Journal of Research in Gender Studies, 6(2), 38–61.
34. Heijstra, T. M., Steinthorsdottir, F.S., & Einarsdottir, T. (2016). Academic career making and the double-edged role of academic housework. Gender and Education, 29(6), 764-780.
35. Hoang, Q. (2013). The impostor phenomenon: Overcoming internalized barriers and recognizing achievements. The Vermont Connection, 34(1), 6.
36. Hymowitz, C. and Schelhardt, T.D. (1986) The Glass-Ceiling: Why Women Can’t Seem to Break the Invisible Barrier that Blocks Them from Top Jobs. The Wall Street Journal, 57, D1, D4-D5.
37. Işık, M.F.(2022). Örtbas edilmiş Mizojini: İmposter Fenomeni, Korumacı Cinsiyetçilik ve Cam Tavan Sendromu, İstanbul Üniversitesi Kadın Araştırmaları Dergisi, 25: 99-110.
38. Kets De Vries, M. F. R. (2005). The dangers of feeling like a fake. Harvard Business Review, 83(9), 108.
39. King, J. E., & Cooley, E. L. (1995). Achievement orientation and the impostor phenomenon among college students. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 20(3), 304-312.
40. Kleven, H., Landais, C., & Søgaard, J. E. (2019). Children and gender inequality: Evidence from Denmark. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, 11(4), 181-209.
41. Kloot, L. (2004). Women and leadership in universities: A case study of women academic managers. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 17(6), 470-485.
42. Knights, D. and Richards, W. (2003), “Sex discrimination in UK Academia”, Gender, Work and Organization, Vol. 10 No. 2, 213-38.
43. Kumar, S., & Jagacinski, C. M. (2006). Imposters have goals too: The imposter phenomenon and its relationship to achievement goal theory. Personality and Individual Differences, 40(1), 147-157.
44. Kulik, C., & Rae, B. (2019) The Glass Ceiling in Organizations. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Business and Management. https://oxfordre.com/business/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780190224851.001.0001/acrefore-9780190224851-e-41 Son Erişim Tarihi: 08/02/2023
45. Lampic, C., Svanberg, A. S., Karlström, P., & Tydén, T. (2006). Fertility awareness, intentions concerning childbearing, and attitudes towards parenthood among female and male academics. Human Reproduction, 21(2), 558-564.
46. Langford, J., & Clance, P. R. (1993). The imposter phenomenon: Recent research findings regarding dynamics, personality and family patterns and their implications for treatment. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research, Practice, Training, 30(3), 495.
47. Lee, H., Anderson, C. B., Yates, M. S., Chang, S., & Chakraverty, D. (2020). Insights into the complexity of the impostor phenomenon among trainees and professionals in STEM and medicine. Current Psychology, 1-12.
48. Li, S., Hughes, J. L., & Thu, S. M. (2014). The Links Between Parenting Styles and Imposter Phenomenon. Psi Chi Journal of Psychological Research, 19(2).
49. Liss, M., & Erchull, M. (2012). Feminism and attachment parenting: Attitudes, stereotypes, and misperceptions. Sex Roles,67(3–4), 131–142.
50. Long, M. L., Jenkins, G. R., & Bracken, S. (2000). Imposters in the sacred grove: Working class women in the academe. The Qualitative Report, 5(3), 1-15.
51. Lucifora, C., Meurs, D., & Villar, E. (2021). The “mommy track” in the workplace. Evidence from a large French firm. Labour Economics, 72, 102035.
52. McIntosh, P. (1989). White privilege: unpacking the invisible knapsack. Peace and Freedom Magazine. Philadelphia (PA): Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom; 1989:10–12. https://psychology.umbc.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/57/2016/10/White-Privilege_McIntosh-1989.pdf .Son Erişim Tarihi: 03/10/2023.
53. Maji, S. (2021). “They Overestimate Me All the Time:” Exploring Imposter Phenomenon among Indian Female Software Engineers. Metamorphosis, 20(2), 55-64.
54. Marongiu, S. and Ekehammer, B. (1999), “Internal and external influences on women’s and men’s entry into management”, Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 14 No. 5, 421-33.
55. Mavriplis, C., Heller, R., Beil, C., & Dam, K. (2010). Mind the gap: Women in STEM career breaks. Journal of Technology Management & Innovation, 5(1), 141–151.
56. McDonald, P., Charlesworth, S., & Graham, T. (2016). Action or inaction: Bystander intervention in workplace sexual harassment. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 27(5), 548-566. McIntosh, P., & Stone Center for Developmental Services and Studies. (1985). Feeling like a fraud (No. 18). Stone Center, Wellesley College.
57. Meyer, M., Cimpian, A., & Leslie, S. J. (2015). Women are underrepresented in fields where success is believed to require brilliance. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 235.
58. Milan, A., Keown, L. A., & Urquijo, C. R. (2011). Families, living arrangements and unpaidwork. Women in Canada: A gender-based statistical report (Statistics Canada, Cat. No.89-503-X). https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/89-503-x/2010001/article/11546-eng.pdf Son Erişim Tarihi: 21/09/2023.
59. Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Leech, N.L. (2007). A Call for qualitative power analyses. Quality & Quantity, 41, 105-121. Öztürk, U. C. (2017). Akademideki Topuk Sesleri: Cam Tavan Perspektifinde Göller Bölgesi Üniversitelerinin Betimsel Analizi. PESA Uluslararası Sosyal Araştırmalar Dergisi , 3(4) , 202-213 .
60. Özvar, E. (2022). Türkiye Akademisinde Kadınlar Daha da Güçleniyor. https://www.yok.gov.tr/Sayfalar/Haberler/2022/turk-akademisinde-kadinlar-daha-da-gucleniyor.aspx#:~:text=%2D%20Y%C3%96K'%C3%BCn%20verilerine%20g%C3%B6re%2C,akademisyenlerin%20oran%C4%B1%20y%C3%BCzde%2046%20oldu.&text=T%C3%BCrkiye'de%2027%20bin%20160,762%20erkek%20%C3%B6%C4%9Fretim%20g%C3%B6revlisi%20bulunuyor. Son Erişim Tarihi: 28/09/2023. Pelican Bay Post (2011). ‘Marilyn Loden on Feminine Leadership’, http://www.ecatalognow.com/publication/?m=11057&i=73810&view=articleBrowser&article_id=766271&search=glass%20ceiling&ver=html5 Son Erişim Tarihi: 09/02/2023.
61. Petric, D. (2018). Gaslighting and the knot theory of mind. http://dx.doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.30838.86082 Son Erişim Tarihi: 04/10/2023.
62. Poyraz, B. (2013). Akademi Kadınların Cenneti mi?: Ankara Üniversitesi Örneği. Ankara Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 4(2), DOI:10.1501/sbeder_0000000057.
63. Robinson, S. L., & Goodpaster, S. K. (1991). The effects of parental alcoholism on perception of control and imposter phenomenon. Current Psychology, 10, 113-119.
64. Schumacher, J. A., Smith Slep, A. M., & Heyman, R. E. (2001). Risk factors for male-to-female partner psychological abuse. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 6(2), 255–268.
65. Sinclair, A. (1998), Doing Leadership Differently, Melbourne University Press, Melbourne.
66. Smith, C. G., & Sinanan, K. (1972). The ‘Gaslight Phenomenon’ Reappears: A Modification of the Ganser Syndrome. The British Journal of Psychiatry, 120(559), 685-686.
67. Smirl, P. (2020, January 30). Combating Gaslighting in the Workplace. Wisconsin School of Business. https://business.wisc.edu/news/combatting-gaslighting-in-the-workplace/ Son Erişim Tarihi:04/10/2023.
68. Sonnak, C., & Towell, T. (2001). The impostor phenomenon in British university students: Relationships between self-esteem, mental health, parental rearing style and socioeconomic status. Personality and Individual Differences, 31(6), 863-874.
69. Staines, G., Tavris, C., & Jayaratne, T. E. (1974). The queen bee syndrome. Psychology Today, 7, 55–60.
70. Şentürk, B. (2015). Çokuz Ama Yokuz: Türkiye’deki Akademisyen Kadınlar Üzerine Bir Analiz, ViraVerita E-Dergi,2:1-22.
71. Tanyıldız, Z.E ve Özdemir, D. (2011). Türkiye’de Bilim Kadını Olmak, Bilimsel İşgücünde Kadın ve Cam Tavan, https://teav.ankara.edu.tr/xmlui/bitstream/handle/20.500.12575/53563/19312.pdf?sequence=1 .Erişim Tarihi: 28/09/2023.
72. Tekin, H. H. (2012). Nitel Araştırma Yönteminin Bir Veri Toplama Tekniği Olarak Derinlemesine Görüşme . İstanbul University Journal of Sociology , 3 (13) , 101-116 .
73. Watson-Creed, G. (2022). Gaslighting in academic medicine: where anti-Black racism lives. CMAJ, 194(42), E1451-E1454.
74. Williams, J. C. (2004). Hitting the Maternal Wall-Before They Reach a" Glass Ceiling" in Their Careers, Women Faculty May Hit a" Maternal Wall". academe Bulletin of the american association of University Professors, 90, 16.
75. Wilton, S., & Ross, L. (2017). Flexibility, sacrifice and insecurity: A Canadian study assessing the challenges of balancing work and family in academia. Journal of Feminist Family Therapy, 29(1-2), 66-87.
76. Wood, G. J., & Newton, J. (2006). Facing the wall-equal opportunity for women in management?. Equal Opportunities International, 25(1), 8–24.