Although change is not new in higher education, the contemporary university is transforming in ways not previously experienced or envisaged. Reduced per-student public funding, volatile public policy environments, increasing global competition and privatisation and decreasing graduate employability are but a few of the disruptors. These challenges lead to particular risks both for universities themselves and to academics and students, although unevenly distributed. Who and what is at risk is gendered with regard to what knowledge is valued and the distribution of power. For example, our research on university executives shows that the gendered division of labour is perpetuated with women undertaking the teaching, learning and quality assurance roles while men occupy prestigious research and financial positions (Blackmore & Sawers 2015; Rowlands 2017). Nor does management reflect the cultural diversity of staff, student and general populations. A significant body of research points to structural and cultural impediments and not women as the problem. Yet much research and policy continues to focus on women’s experiences and what women need to do differently in order to succeed in academia or senior management. Despite the increased investment by universities and women in career development and 30 years of equity programs equity has not been achieved as was expected. While ‘change is at the heart of gender studies and the field of gender, work and organization’, we still know little about how to change inequalities in organisations (Benschop and Verloo 2011 p. 277-278). Organisational change, including that which aims to address inequality, remains under-researched and undertheorised particularly in higher education. Even those strategies aimed at structural transformation don’t provide clear strategies for achieving change and can often impede both beneficial reform and equity for staff. Bourdieu has often been used to inform higher education research and by feminist scholars although not without criticism for inadequately explaining change (eg. Naidoo 2004). However, we argue that that through the intersection of habitus, field and capital, Bourdieu’s theories can offer deeper understandings of impediments to change in the field of higher education (Kloot 2009). What we add is a critical and feminist organisational analysis to Bourdieu’s work to explore why higher education is so resistant gender equity and the extensive shifts that would need to occur in not only fields but also in capitals and agents as well as universities as organisations.

Benschop, Y & Verloo, M 2011, 'Gender change, organizational change and gender equlity strategies', in E Jeanes, D Knights & P Yancey Martin (eds), Handbook of Gender, Work & Organization, Wiley, Chichester, pp. 27790. Blackmore, J & Sawers, N 2015, 'Executive power and scaled-up gender subtexts in Australian entrepreneurial universities', Gender and Education, vol. 27, no. 3, pp. 32037. Kloot, B 2009, 'Exploring the value of Bourdieu's framework in the context of institutional change', Studies in Higher Education, vol. 34, no. 4 pp. 469- 481. Rowlands, J 2017, 'The domestic labour of academic governance and the loss of academic voice', Gender and Education, pp. 118, DOI 10.1080/09540253.2017.1324132.