Educational academic careers in Europe with gender perspective - an empiric norwegian-german analysis
Author(s):
Anna Gstöttner (presenting / submitting)
Conference:
ECER 2012
Network:
21. Emerging Researchers' Group (for presentation at Emerging Researchers' Conference)
Format:
Poster

Session Information

ERG SES B 04, Interactive Poster Session

Parallel Poster Session

Time:
2012-09-17
11:00-12:30
Room:
FCEE - Aula 2.4
Chair:
Joana da Silveira Duarte
Discussant:
Patrícia Fidalgo

Contribution

The proportion of women among the graduate european educational sciences is at about 80 percent. This gender ratio is almost reversed in a typical career course up to the A-grade-professorship and leadership positions in an educational academic field. In Germany, 71 percent of these positions are held by men – with a ratio of male graduates of 22.5 percent [1]. The gender difference is allocating professorships in subjects with a high ratio of female students such as educational science particularly pronounced [2].This effect is not shown in the case of a reversed gender constellation [3;4]. The Scandinavian countries and especially Norway are considered as pioneering countries concerning  gender  equality [5]. Nevertheless 74 percent of the A-grade professorships in Norway are held by men [6] The mechanisms of the feminised subjects are apparently more efficient than the measures of gender equalisation. This phenomenon which still is a research desideratum will be researched in this paper.

Research questions: Which factors motivate education scientists holding a PhD or a postdoctoral qualification to decide against a “classical” tenure track leading to a professorship and a leadership? Which role does gender play? To what extent can gender differences be found in international comparison? Which conclusion can be drawn for the “feminised” subjects?

The Theoretical approach is based on decision theories according to Boudon, Esser and Gigerenzer, the habitus-theory/capital-theory according to Bourdieu, the strategic fit concept according to Friebertshäuser and the competence learning-theory according to Rychen and Salganik.

Method

The sample consists of 21 educational scientists in Norway and Germany with PhD or postdoctoral qualifications and of a contrast group with professors and postdoctoral scientists. The selection took place according to Theoretical Sampling [7] the data were collected with guided interviews [8]. In the evaluation it is assumed that there exists a discrepancy between the argumentation of the reasons explicitly put forward on the one hand and the orientations which have a guiding effect on the other. To get a proper research design both evaluation methods are combined. The former are collected by means of a Qualitative Content Analysis [9] with a system of categories and for validation purposes coded a second time. Prototypes are defined by frequencies and extremes, whose orientations were reconstructed with the documentary method [10] and are validated with an interpretation group.

Expected Outcomes

The final analysis is based on the method mix which combines Content Analysis and Documentary Method. It is expected to show a mix of reasons to leave the tenure track, individual and systemic reasons. Individually, neither the social background nor family context seem to be essential. Important is the motivation and volition to reach an academic leadership. Many of the interviewed persons got into a (post) doctoral education accidentally or for lack of other options. The systemic factor indicates the importance of the relationship to the (post) doctoral adviser and the patronage. It looks like there is no significant difference between men and women and between Germany and Norway. But there is a significant difference to them who still are on the tenure track or hold an A-grade-professorship and them who got off this track.

References

[1] K.-J. Tillmann, T. Rauschenbach, R. Tippelt and H. Weishaupt, Datenreport Erziehungswissenschaft 2008, Barbara Budrich, Opladen, 2008. [2] I. Lind and A. Löther, “Chancen für Frauen in der Wissenschaft – eine Frage der Fachkultur? – Retrospektive Verlaufsanalysen und aktuelle Forschungsergebnisse“, Revenue suisse des sciences de l`éducation; 2007, pp. 249-272. [3] I. Lind, Aufstieg oder Ausstieg? Karrierewege von Wissenschaftlerinnen – Ein Forschungsüberblick, Kleine Verlag, Bielefeld, 2004. [4] Bund-Länder-Kommission, Frauen in Führungspositionen an Hochschulen und außerhochschulischen Forschungseinrichtungen, self-published, Bonn, 2008. [5] M. Teigen, “Die norwegische Gender-Politik: Quoten und aktive Förderung”, WSI-Mitteilungen, 2009, pp. 138-143. [6] World Economic Forum, “Gender Gap Index 2010”, http://www.weforum.org/issues/global-gender-gap, retrieved on 2011-12-20. [7] B.G. Glaser and A.L. Strauss, Grounded Theory, Huber, Bern, 1998. [8] A. Witzel, Verfahren der qualitativen Sozialforschung, Campus, Frankfurt a.M. and New York, 1982.

Author Information

Anna Gstöttner (presenting / submitting)
Friedrich - Alexander - University
Education
Erlangen

Update Modus of this Database

The current conference programme can be browsed in the conference management system (conftool) and, closer to the conference, in the conference app.
This database will be updated with the conference data after ECER. 

Search the ECER Programme

  • Search for keywords and phrases in "Text Search"
  • Restrict in which part of the abstracts to search in "Where to search"
  • Search for authors and in the respective field.
  • For planning your conference attendance, please use the conference app, which will be issued some weeks before the conference and the conference agenda provided in conftool.
  • If you are a session chair, best look up your chairing duties in the conference system (Conftool) or the app.