-

Öz

Vertical segregation by sex or Glass ceiling issue has been one of the most widely observed and persistent characteristics of labour markets all over the world. The negligible portion of female white collar employees in total number of top/senior managers as CEO’s, president, Financial manager etc. is usually concluded by Feminists as the reflection of unseen barriers set by male-dominant systems in both society and in the workplace. In this paper, I reviewed Feminists’ theoretical explanations about Glass ceiling issue. Then I examined the change in occupational segregation by sex in Turkish universities by means of available data during 1990-2011 period. The relative position of female Professors and Associate Professors at universities by means of academic departments and fields is also used as an indicator for Glass ceiling issue. The results of the depth-in interviews conducted at a public university in Ankara shows how female faculty members observed the invisible barriers for their academic promotion

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Glass Ceiling, Feminist Theories, Occupational Segregation

KADIN AKADEMİSYENLER: CAM TAVANLAR HÂLÂ ÇOK KALIN!

Öz

Cam tavan Feminist teorilerde, işgücü piyasasındaki dikey katmanlaşmayı işaret eder. Erkeklerle aynı işyerinde çalışan beyaz yakalı kadınların, daha çok orta ve alt düzey yönetici konumuna sıkışıp kaldığı ve Finansman müdürü, mütevelli heyeti başkanı, rektör, dekan vb. gibi üst düzey yönetici pozisyonlarının %95’den fazlasının erkekler tarafından temsil edildiği işgücü piyasalarının yaygın ve dirençli bir özelliğidir. Bu makalede, cam tavan konusundaki Feminist teorilerin kısa bir değerlendirmesini yaptım. Daha sonra, Türkiye üniversitelerindeki yatay ve dikey katmanlaşmayı 1990-2011 dönemindeki toplumsal dönüşüm dinamikleri açısından irdelemeye çalıştım. Cam tavan olgusunun, Profesör/Doçent gibi güvenceli ve sürekli kadrolar açısından ve akademik disiplinler kesitinde nasıl değiştiğini mevcut istatistiklere dayanarak analiz ettim. Bir kamu üniversitesinde yaptığımız derinlemesine mülakat sonuçları da, kadın akademisyenlerin kariyer yollarında yapılandırılan görünmeyen engelleri nasıl algıladıkları konusunda ipuçları vermektedir.

Anahtar sözcükler: Cam Tavan, Feminist Teoriler, Türkiye Üniversitelerinde Cinsiyete Dayalı Ayrımcılık

WOMEN ACADEMICIANS: GLASS CEILINGS ARE STILL TOO THICK!

Vertical segregation by sex or Glass ceiling issue has been one of the most widely observed and persistent characteristics of labour markets all over the world. The negligible portion of female white collar employees in total number of top/senior managers as CEO’s, president, Financial manager etc. is usually concluded by Feminists as the reflection of unseen barriers set by male-dominant systems in both society and in the workplace. In this paper, I reviewed Feminists’ theoretical explanations about Glass ceiling issue. Then I examined the change in occupational segregation by sex in Turkish universities by means of available data during 1990-2011 period. The relative position of female Professors and Associate Professors at universities by means of academic departments and fields is also used as an indicator for Glass ceiling issue. The results of the depth-in interviews conducted at a public university in Ankara shows how female faculty members observed the invisible barriers for their academic promotion.

Keywords: Glass Ceiling, Feminist Theories, Occupational Segregation by Sex at Turkish Universities

Anahtar Kelimeler

• -

Kaynakça

1. Acar, F. (1991) “Women in academic science careers in Turkey” in V. Stolte- Heiskanen (Ed.), Women in science: Token women or gender equality? , pp. 147–171, Oxford: Berg.
2. Acar, F.(2012) “Women and university education in Turkey”, Higher Education in Europe, Vol.18, No.4, pp.65-77.
3. Acker, J. (1990) “Hierarchies, Jobs, Bodies: a Theory of Gendered Organiza- tions”, Gender & Society, vol.4, no.2, pp.139-58.
4. Adak Ç. N. ve Cömertler, N.,(2005) “Türkiye’de Akademide ve Akademik Yöne- timde Kadınlar”, Sosyoloji Araştırmaları Dergisi, Cilt: 8, sayı:2.
5. Adler, N. J.: 1993, ‘Competitive Frontiers: Women Managers in the Triad’, In- ternational Studies of Management and Organization, Vol. 23, No.,pp. 3–23.
6. Anker, R. (1997) “Theories of Occupational Segregation by Sex: An Overview”, International Labour Review, vol.136, no. 3, ILO, Geneva.
7. Benschop, Y and Brouns, M, (2003) “Climbing Ivory Towers: Academic Organ- izing and Its Gender Effects”, Gender, Work and Organization, Vol:10, No.2, March.
8. Cotter, D.A., Hermsen, J.M. and Vanneman, R.(2001),” Women’s work and working women: demand for female labour”, Gender & Society,Vol. 15, No.3, June, pp.429-452.

9. Deem, R., (2003) Gender, organizational cultures and the practices of manager- academics in UK universities. Gender, Work and Organisation, 10(2), 239– 259.
10. EU(2010), Gender inequality inthe EU in 2010, Eurobaometer, http://ec.europa. eu/public_opinion/archives
11. Ferguson, K. (1984) The Feminist Case Against Bureaucracy ,Temple University Press, Philadelphia.
12. Folbre, N. (1994), “Collective Action and Structures of Constraint”, Who Pays for the Kids?”, Gender and the Structures of Constraint, Routledge, London, pp.51-90 içinde.
13. Gardiner, J. (1979) Women’s Domestic Labour”, Z. Eisenstein (ed.), Capitalist Patriarchy and the Case for Socialist Feminism, Monthly Review Press, New York, pp. 173-89 içinde
14. Gunluk-Senesen, G. (1994). Female participation in the Turkish university ad- ministration: Econometric and survey findings, 1992. Bogazici Journal, Sym- posium on Gender and Society, 8(1–2), 63–81.
15. Günlük-Şenesen, G.( 2009), “Glass Ceiling in Academic Administration in Tur- key: 1990s versus 2000s”, Tertiary Education and Management, 15:4, 305- 322
16. Harding, S. and McGregor, E. (1995) The Gender Dimension of Science and Technology, Paris: UNESCO.
17. Hartmann, H. (1981) “The Family as the Locus of Gender, Class, and Political Struggle: the Example of Housework”, Signs, vol.16, no.3, Spring, pp. 366- 94.
18. Helgesen, S.(1990), The Female Advantage: Women’s Ways of Leadership , Doubleday, New York.
19. Humphiries, J. and Rubery, J. (eds) (1995) The Economics of Equal Opportuni- ties, UMIST, Manchester.
20. Oakley, J.G.(2000), “Gender-baised barrier to senior management positions: un- derstanding the scarcity of female CEOs”, Journal of Business erthics, No.27: 321-334.
21. ÖSYM(2012), 2011-2012 Öğretim yılı yüksek öğretim istatistikleri, www.osym. gov.tr (Mayıs 2012)
22. Ozbilgin, M., and Healy, G. (2004) “ The gendered nature of career development of university professors: the case of Turkey”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol.64, No.2,pp. 358–371.
23. Özkanlı, Ö. ve Korkmaz, A., (2000), Kadın Akademisyenler, A.Ü. SBF yayını, Haziran, Ankara.
24. Özkaplan, N. ve Öztürk F.( 2011), “Üniversitede cinsiyet eşitliği:Gazi Üniversi- tesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Örneği”, U.Serdaroğlu(ed.) İktisat ve Toplumsal Cinsiyet, Efil yay., Ankara içinde, s.210-225.
25. Probert, B.(2005), “ ‘I Just Couldn’t Fit It In’: Gender and Unequal Outcomes in Academic Careers”, Gender, Work and Organization, Vol:12, No:1, January.
26. Rosener, J. B.,( 1995), America’s Competitive Secret: Utilizing Women as a Man- agement Strategy Oxford University Press, New York.
27. Ruth, D. (2005), “Gender and Perceptions of Academic Work in South Africa”, JHEA/RESA Vol. 3, No. 3.
28. Serdaroğlu, U. (1997) Feminist İktisadın Bakışı Postmodernist mi?, Sarmal ya- yınevi, İstanbul.
29. Wajman, J. (1996)Feminism confronts technology,Pennsylvania, the Pennsylva- nia State University Press.
30. Witz, A. and Savage, M. , (1992) ‘Theorethical Introduction: The Gender of Organi- zations’, in A.Witz and M. Savage (eds.), Gender and Bureaucracy(Blackwell Publishers, Oxford).