Abstract
This article argues that Higher Education Institutions should adopt positive action in recruitment and promotion to tackle women’s under-representation in senior leadership roles. In a tie-break situation where two candidates are “as qualified as each other”, section 159 of the UK Equality Act 2010 allows employers to give preference to a candidate from an under-represented group. The use of this measure, however, is often contested on the grounds that it is a form of reverse discrimination, it is tokenistic and that it can undermine meritocracy. This article seeks to challenge these objections and suggests that, far from undermining meritocracy, the use of positive action in recruitment and promotion could prove a useful tool to tackle gender bias, unpack stereotypes and re-appraise how merit is defined and assessed.
Highlights
Women represent over 54% of the total workforce in the Higher Education (HE) sector in the whole of the UK yet [1], only 20% of them are in Vice-Chancellor and Principal roles
In order to achieve these outcomes, HE needs to tackle the “invisible barriers” which prevent women from progressing into senior roles. These include a gendered construction of leadership [8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16], the impact of cognitive bias, which results in women being constantly judged less favourably than men [17,18,19] and accumulate disadvantage throughout their career [20]
The arguments developed above challenge the objections which tend to be commonly raised against the use of positive action in recruitment and promotion and provide a compelling case for Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) to seriously consider the use of s. 159 when making decisions about recruitment and promotion relating to senior roles
Summary
Women represent over 54% of the total workforce in the Higher Education (HE) sector in the whole of the UK yet [1], only 20% of them are in Vice-Chancellor and Principal roles. Cognitive bias is further reinforced by a persistent male-dominated culture which renders universities” an endemically homosocial gentlemen’s club” [21] where, by and large, men are most comfortable to work with other men [22] These issues are compounded by a gendered division of labour in the academy with women likely to have greater teaching, administrative and pastoral responsibilities, which tend to be less valued than research [23] and by “gendered academic rules”, for example about evaluation criteria and authorships conventions [24]. It concludes by suggesting that there is a compelling case for HEIs to start using this measure and it proposes a model for its application in practice
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
