Abstract

This research aims to examine the perceptions of women academics in Turkey about the concept of mansplaining and to reveal and interpret their experiences of being exposed to it. Mansplaining is defined as the act of explaining something to someone in a patronizing and condescending manner (Reagle, 2016). In other words, it is the practice of a man explaining something to a woman in a way that shows he thinks he knows and understands more than she does (Oxford Dictionary, 2022). Mansplaining, in its simplest form, is the practice of silencing women by men. However, women from different social backgrounds can experience this in different forms and intensities. When the related literature is examined, it is seen that the concept of mansplaining is studied by analysing social media (Bridges, 2017; Lutzsky, 2021), it is analysed through the lens of epistemic injustice and it is determined what mansplaining is and what its damages are (Dular, 2021), a mixed-method study (Koc-Michalska, et al., 2021) which investigated the younger version of mansplaining in primary schools and examined the nature, prevalence and relations of the concept of mansplaining in modern working life. This research will examine the perceptions of women academics in Turkey about mansplaining and reveal their negative experiences, the obstacles and problems they face, the effects of this situation on their academic careers and their solution suggestions to overcome these problems will be revealed and interpreted.

Debates on patriarchy, gender inequalities, gender-based violence, and mansplaining encountered by women both in their social and working life as well as in academia have increased from past to present in European countries and around the world. The intensity of the discussions in this regard suggests that there are still some problems or deficiencies in the implementation of gender equality policies and in the elimination of patriarchy and the masculine mindset in academia. 

The research is designed with the qualitative method, phenomenological research design. The reason for using the phenomenological design is that it is a design that reveals the ways in which more than one participant makes sense of a phenomenon or a concept they have experienced in phenomenology studies (Creswell, 2014). Criterion sampling technique will be used. It is planned to interview minimum 10 women academics from various universities who are interested in this issue or who have been exposed to mansplaining in their academic career. A semi-structured interview form developed by the researchers will be used to collect the data. NVivo 10 package programme will be used in the analysis of qualitative data. The data will be analysed by the content analysis method. Finally, the findings will be interpreted with key findings summarised and analysed.

The research findings are expected to raise national and international awareness of the issue and provide solution suggestions by revealing the problems experienced by women academics in Turkey regarding mansplaining and their perceptions of this concept.

Bridges, J. (2017). Gendering metapragmatics in online discourse:“Mansplaining man gonna mansplain…”. Discourse, Context & Media, 20, 94-102. Creswell, J. W., (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Los Angeles: Sage Publications. Dular, N. (2021). Mansplaining as epistemic injustice. Feminist Philosophy Quarterly, 7(1). Koc-Michalska, K., Schiffrin, A., Lopez, A., Boulianne, S., & Bimber, B. (2021). From online political posting to mansplaining: The gender gap and social media in political discussion. Social Science Computer Review, 39(2), 197-210. Lutzky, U., & Lawson, R. (2019). Gender politics and discourses of# mansplaining,# manspreading, and# manterruption on Twitter. Social Media+ Society, 5(3), 2056305119861807. Oxford Dictionary (2022). Mansplaining. https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/mansplaining?q=mansplaining Reagle, J. (2016). The obligation to know: From FAQ to Feminism 101. New Media & Society, 18(5), 691-707.