AKADEMİK LİDERLİKTE ENGELLERİ AŞMAK: KADIN AKADEMİSYENLER İÇİN KURUMSAL VE KÜLTÜREL ZORLUKLAR

Öz

Bu çalışma, Türkiye’de kamu üniversitelerinin işletme fakültelerinde görev yapan kadın akademisyenlerin liderlik pozisyonlarına ulaşma süreçlerinde karşılaştıkları yapısal ve kültürel engelleri incelemektedir. Araştırma, kuramsal çerçevesini Feminist Kuramsalcılık ve Postyapısalcı Feminizm yaklaşımlarından alarak, nitel ve fenomenolojik bir tasarımla yürütülmüştür. Liderlik pozisyonunda bulunan yirmi kadın akademisyenle yapılan derinlemesine görüşmelere dayanan çalışmada, tematik analiz sonucunda dört ana tema belirlenmiştir: toplumsal cinsiyete dayalı kariyer yollarını şekillendiren görünmez engeller, eşitsizliği yeniden üreten terfi yapıları, erkek egemen gayri resmî ağlar aracılığıyla dışlama ve kapsayıcı liderlik modellerinin yeniden tasarlanması ihtiyacı. Araştırma bulguları, toplumsal cinsiyet eşitliğini teşvik eden resmî politikaların varlığına rağmen, kurumsal yapıların içerisindeki gayri resmî normlar ve kültürel anlatıların toplumsal cinsiyete dayalı hiyerarşileri sürdürdüğünü ortaya koymaktadır. Çalışma hem kuramsal hem de pratik düzeyde katkılar sunmakta; daha kapsayıcı ve adil akademik ortamların inşası için yapısal reformlar ve kültürel dönüşümler önerilmektedir. Kadın liderlerin seslerini ve deneyimlerini ön plana çıkaran bu araştırma, feminist kuram ile kurumsal düzeyde somut değişim arasındaki boşluğun kapatılmasına katkı sağlamaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Toplumsal Cinsiyet Eşitliği
• Akademik Liderlik
• Feminist Kurumsalcılık
• Postyapısalcı Feminizm
• Yapısal Engeller

BREAKING BARRIERS IN ACADEMIC LEADERSHIP: INSTITUTIONAL AND CULTURAL CHALLENGES FOR WOMEN ACADEMICS

Öz

This study explores the structural and cultural barriers encountered by women academics in Türkiye in their pursuit of leadership positions, focusing on business schools at public universities. Guided by the theoretical frameworks of Feminist Institutionalism and Poststructuralist Feminism, the research employs a qualitative, phenomenological design based on in-depth interviews with twenty women in leadership roles. Thematic analysis revealed four broad themes: invisible barriers shaping gendered career paths, promotion structures reinforcing inequality, exclusion through male-dominated informal networks, and the need to reimagine inclusive leadership models. The findings demonstrate that while formal policies promoting gender equity exist, informal institutional norms and cultural narratives continue to sustain gendered hierarchies. The study offers both theoretical insights and practical recommendations, advocating for structural reforms and cultural transformations to create more inclusive and equitable academic environments. By foregrounding the voices and lived experiences of women leaders, this research contributes to bridging the gap between feminist theory and actionable institutional change.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Gender Equality
• Academic Leadership
• Feminist Institutionalism
• Poststructuralist Feminism
• Structural Barriers

Kaynakça

1. Acker, J. (1990). Hierarchies, jobs, bodies: A theory of gendered organizations. Gender & Society, 4(2), 139-158.
2. Acker, J. (1992). From sex roles to gendered institutions. Contemporary Sociology, 21(5), 565–569.
3. Ahmed, S. (2012). On being included: Racism and diversity in institutional life. In On being included. Duke University Press.
4. Bailyn, L. (2003). Academic careers and gender equity: Lessons learned from MIT 1. Gender, Work & Organization, 10(2), 137-153.
5. Baker, M. (2010). Career confidence and gendered expectations of academic promotion. Journal of Sociology, 46(3), 317-334.
6. Baxter, J. (2018). Women leaders and gender stereotyping in the UK Press: A poststructuralist approach. Springer International Publishing
7. Bencivenga, R., Leone, C., & Siri, A. (2021). Gender equality, diversity, and inclusion in academia: successes and failures of the initiatives promoted by the European Union. Geopolitical, Social Security and Freedom Journal, 4(1), 27-40.
8. Benschop, Y., & Brouns, M. (2003). Crumbling ivory towers: Academic organizing and its gender effects. Gender, Work & Organization, 10(2), 194-212.

9. Bird, S. R. (2011). Unsettling universities' incongruous, gendered bureaucratic structures: A case‐study approach. Gender, Work & Organization, 18(2), 202-230. Butler, J. (1990). Gender trouble: Feminism and the subversion of identity. Routledge.
10. Bird, S. R. (2011). Unsettling universities' incongruous, gendered bureaucratic structures: A case‐study approach. Gender, Work & Organization, 18(2), 202-230.
11. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77-101.
12. Butler, J., & Trouble, G. (1990). Feminism and the Subversion of Identity. Gender Trouble, 3(1), 3-17.
13. Casad, B. J., Franks, J. E., Garasky, C. E., Kittleman, M. M., Roesler, A. C., Hall, D. Y., & Petzel, Z. W. (2021). Gender inequality in academia: Problems and solutions for women faculty in STEM. Journal of Neuroscience Research, 99(1), 13-23.
14. Chappell, L. (2014). Conflicting institutions and the search for gender justice at the international criminal court. Political Research Quarterly, 67(1), 183-196.
15. Chappell, L., & Waylen, G. (2013). Gender and the hidden life of institutions. Public Administration, 91(3), 599–615.
16. Clavero, S., & Galligan, Y. (2021). Delivering gender justice in academia through gender equality plans? Normative and practical challenges. Gender, Work & Organization, 28(3), 1115-1132.
17. Cobanoglu, F. (2018). Gender Equality in Turkish Higher Education. International Journal of Higher Education, 7(5), 97-113.
18. Collins, P. H. (2022). Black feminist thought: Knowledge, consciousness, and the politics of empowerment. Routledge.
19. Council of Higher Education (YÖK). (2025a). Summary report on academic staff statistics. YÖK Publications. https://istatistik.yok.gov.tr (Accessed: July 4, 2025).
20. Council of Higher Education (YÖK). (2025b). Summary report on academic staff statistics by department. YÖK Publications. https://istatistik.yok.gov.tr (Accessed: July 4, 2025).
21. Crenshaw, K. (2013). Demarginalizing the intersection of race and sex: A black feminist critique of antidiscrimination doctrine, feminist theory and antiracist politics. In Feminist legal theories (pp. 23-51). Routledge.
22. Creswell, J. W. (2013). Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing Among Five Approaches (3rd ed.). SAGE Publications.
23. Derrida, J. (1978) Writing and Difference. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
24. Foucault, M. (1977). Discipline and punish (A. Sheridan, trans.). New York: Pantheon.
25. Foucault, M. (1990). The history of sexuality: An introduction (Vol. 1). Vintage.
26. Fox, M. F. (2010). Women and men faculty in academic science and engineering: Social-organizational indicators and implications. American Behavioral Scientist, 53(7), 997-1012.
27. Fox, M. F., & Colatrella, C. (2006). Participation, performance, and advancement of women in academic science and engineering: What is at issue and why. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 31(3), 377-386.
28. Gains, F., & Lowndes, V. (2014). How is institutional formation gendered, and does it make a difference? A new conceptual framework and a case study of police and crime commissioners in England and Wales. Politics & Gender, 10(4), 524-548.
29. Goulden, M., Mason, M. A., & Frasch, K. (2011). Keeping women in the science pipeline. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 638(1), 141-162.
30. Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture's consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions and organizations across nations. Sage Publications.
31. House, R. J. (2004). Culture, leadership, and organizations: The GLOBE study of 62 societies. Thousand Oaks, CA.
32. Igiebor, O. (2025). The Subversive Influence of Informal Institutions on Formal Equity Policies in Nigerian Universities: Gender Stakeholders' Perspectives. Journal of Gender, Culture and Society, 3(1), 19-31.
33. Irigaray, L. (1985). Speculum of the other woman. Cornell University Press.
34. Kanter, R. M. (2008). Men and women of the corporation: New edition. Basic books.
35. Kenny, M., & Mackay, F. (2009). Nested newness, institutional innovation, and the gendered limits of change. Politics & Gender, 10(4), 549–571.
36. Kristeva, J. (1980). Desire in language: A semiotic approach to literature and art. Columbia University Press.
37. Luke, C. (2001). Globalization and women in academia: North/west-south/east. Routledge.
38. Mackay, F., Kenny, M., & Chappell, L. (2010). New institutionalism through a gender lens: Towards a feminist institutionalism?. International Political Science Review, 31(5), 573-588.
39. Mahoney, J., & Thelen, K. (2009). Explaining institutional change: Ambiguity, agency, and power. Cambridge University Press
40. March, J. G., & Olsen, J. P. (1983). The new institutionalism: Organizational factors in political life. American Political Science Review, 78(3), 734-749. https://doi.org/10.2307/1961840.
41. Marschke, R., Laursen, S., Nielsen, J. M., & Rankin, P. (2007). Demographic inertia revisited: An immodest proposal to achieve equitable gender representation among faculty in higher education. The Journal of Higher Education, 78(1), 1-26.
42. Misra, J., Lundquist, J. H., Holmes, E., & Agiomavritis, S. (2011). The ivory ceiling of service work. Academe, 97(1), 22-26.
43. Morley, L. (2013). The rules of the game: Women and the leaderist turn in higher education. Gender and Education, 25(1), 116-131.
44. Monroe, K., & Chiu, W. F. (2010). Gender equality in the academy: The pipeline problem. PS: Political Science & Politics, 43(2), 303–308.
45. Özkanlı, Ö., & White, K. (2008). Leadership and strategic choices: Female professors in Australia and Turkey. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 30(1), 53-63.
46. Özkanlı, Ö., & White, K. (2009). Gender and leadership in Turkish and Australian universities. Equal Opportunities International, 28(4), 324-335.
47. Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (Vol. 3). Sage.
48. Probert, B. (2005). ‘I just couldn’t fit it in’: Gender and unequal outcomes in academic careers. Gender, Work & Organization, 12(1), 50-72.
49. Savigny, H. (2017). Cultural sexism is ordinary: Writing and re‐writing women in academia. Gender, Work & Organization, 24(6), 643-655.
50. Savigny, H. (2019). Cultural sexism and the UK higher education sector. Journal of Gender Studies, 28(6), 661-673.
51. Scott, J. W. (2007). Gender as a useful category of historical analysis. In Culture, society and sexuality (pp. 77-97). Routledge.
52. Sezgin, F. H., & Hobikoğlu, E. H. (2022). Türkiye’de Yükseköğretim Kurumlarında İstihdamda Cinsiyet Açığının İstatistiksel Analizi. KADEM Kadın Araştırmaları Dergisi, 8(1), 69-93.
53. Titrek, O., Bayrakci, M., & Gunes, D. Z. (2014). Barriers to women’s leadership in Turkey. The Anthropologist, 18(1), 135-144.
54. Valian, V. (2005). Beyond gender schemas: Improving the advancement of women in academia. Hypatia, 20(3), 198-213.
55. Ward, K., & Wolf-Wendel, L. (2004). Academic motherhood: Managing complex roles in research universities. The Review of Higher Education, 27(2), 233-257.
56. Waylen, G. (2014). Informal institutions, institutional change, and gender equality. Political Research Quarterly, 67(1), 212–223.
57. Weiner, E., & MacRae, H. (2014). The persistent invisibility of gender in EU policy: Introduction. Weiner, Elaine and Heather MacRae (2014):‘The persistent invisibility of gender in EU policy: Introduction’, in: Weiner, Elaine and Heather MacRae (eds):‘The persistent invisibility of gender in EU policy’European Integration online Papers (EIoP), Special, (1).
58. Wendoh, S., & Wallace, T. (2005). Re-thinking gender mainstreaming in African NGOs and communities. Gender & Development, 13(2), 70-79.
59. White, K. (2003). Women and leadership in higher education in Australia. Tertiary Education & Management, 9(1), 45-60.
60. Witteman, H. O., Hendricks, M., Straus, S., & Tannenbaum, C. (2019). Are gender gaps due to evaluations of the applicant or the science? A natural experiment at a national funding agency. The Lancet, 393(10171), 531-540.
61. Wolfinger, N. H., Mason, M. A., & Goulden, M. (2008). Problems in the pipeline: Gender, marriage, and fertility in the ivory tower. The Journal of higher education, 79(4), 388-405.
62. Yamak, S., Ergur, A., Özbilgin, M. F., & Alakavuklar, O. N. (2016). Gender as symbolic capital and violence: The case of corporate elites in Turkey. Gender, Work & Organization, 23(2), 125-146.
63. Yıldız, S. (2018). Türkiye’de kadın akademisyen olmak. Yükseköğretim ve Bilim Dergisi, (1), 29-40. DOI: 10.5961/jhes.2018.245
64. Weedon, C. (1987). Feminist practice and poststructuralist theory. Blackwell.