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

Burcu Sel; Mehmet Arif Bozan

doi:10.17275/per.24.14.11.1

EN

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

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

Details

Primary Language

English

Subjects

Educational Psychology

Journal Section

Research Article

Authors

Burcu Sel ^*
0000-0002-7663-0434
Türkiye

Mehmet Arif Bozan
0000-0003-3554-4828
Türkiye

Early Pub Date

December 26, 2023

Publication Date

January 1, 2024

Submission Date

September 27, 2023

Acceptance Date

December 6, 2023

Published in Issue

Year 2024 Volume: 11 Number: 1

DOI

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

IZ

https://izlik.org/JA99XE92HN

APA

Sel, B., & Bozan, M. A. (2024). A q method study on gender (in)equality in faculties of education in turkey: “The glass ceiling is everywhere!”. Participatory Educational Research, 11(1), 227-246. https://doi.org/10.17275/per.24.14.11.1

AMA

1.Sel B, Bozan MA. A q method study on gender (in)equality in faculties of education in turkey: “The glass ceiling is everywhere!.” PER. 2024;11(1):227-246. doi:10.17275/per.24.14.11.1

Chicago

Sel, Burcu, and Mehmet Arif Bozan. 2024. “A Q Method Study on Gender (in)equality in Faculties of Education in Turkey: ‘The Glass Ceiling Is Everywhere!’”. Participatory Educational Research 11 (1): 227-46. https://doi.org/10.17275/per.24.14.11.1.

EndNote

Sel B, Bozan MA (January 1, 2024) A q method study on gender (in)equality in faculties of education in turkey: “The glass ceiling is everywhere!”. Participatory Educational Research 11 1 227–246.

IEEE

[1]B. Sel and M. A. Bozan, “A q method study on gender (in)equality in faculties of education in turkey: ‘The glass ceiling is everywhere!’”, PER, vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 227–246, Jan. 2024, doi: 10.17275/per.24.14.11.1.

ISNAD

Sel, Burcu - Bozan, Mehmet Arif. “A Q Method Study on Gender (in)equality in Faculties of Education in Turkey: ‘The Glass Ceiling Is Everywhere!’”. Participatory Educational Research 11/1 (January 1, 2024): 227-246. https://doi.org/10.17275/per.24.14.11.1.

JAMA

1.Sel B, Bozan MA. A q method study on gender (in)equality in faculties of education in turkey: “The glass ceiling is everywhere!”. PER. 2024;11:227–246.

MLA

Sel, Burcu, and Mehmet Arif Bozan. “A Q Method Study on Gender (in)equality in Faculties of Education in Turkey: ‘The Glass Ceiling Is Everywhere!’”. Participatory Educational Research, vol. 11, no. 1, Jan. 2024, pp. 227-46, doi:10.17275/per.24.14.11.1.

Vancouver

1.Burcu Sel, Mehmet Arif Bozan. A q method study on gender (in)equality in faculties of education in turkey: “The glass ceiling is everywhere!”. PER. 2024 Jan. 1;11(1):227-46. doi:10.17275/per.24.14.11.1