Legibility zones: an empirically-informed framework for considering unbelonging and exclusion in contemporary English academia

This article introduces a new, empirically-derived conceptual framework for considering exclusion in English higher education (HE): legibility zones. Drawing on interviews with academic employees in England, it suggests that participants orientate themselves to a powerful imaginary termed the hegemonic academic. Failing to align with this ideal can engender a sense of dislocation conceptualised as unbelonging. The mechanisms through which hegemonic academic identity is constituted and unbelonging is experienced are mapped onto three domains: the institutional, the ideological, and the embodied. The framework reveals the mutable and intersecting nature of these zones, highlighting the complex dynamics of unbelonging and the attendant challenge presented to inclusion projects when many apparatuses of exclusion are perceived as fundamental to what HE is for, what an academic is, and how academia functions

Legibility Zones:An empirically-informed framework for considering unbelonging and exclusion in contemporary English academia

This paper introduces a new, empirically-derived conceptual framework for considering exclusion in English higher education (HE): legibility zones. Drawing on interviews with academic employees in England, it suggests that participants orientate themselves to a powerful imaginary termed the hegemonic academic. Failing to align with this ideal can engender a sense of dislocation conceptualised as unbelonging. The mechanisms through which hegemonic academic identity is constituted and unbelonging is experienced are mapped onto three domains: the institutional, the ideological, and the embodied. The framework reveals the mutable and intersecting nature of these zones, highlighting the complex dynamics of unbelonging and the attendant challenge presented to inclusion projects when many apparatuses of exclusion are perceived as fundamental to what HE is for, what an academic is, and how academia functions

Opportunities and Barriers to Leadership for Female Finance Directors in the United Kingdom: a Qualitative Study

Despite progress and legislation, there are relatively few women in finance director roles. Men are still seven times more likely to be finance directors than women (Austin, 2020). This inequity led to the development of the research topic ‘Opportunities and Barriers to Leadership for Female Finance Directors in the United Kingdom: A Qualitative Study’. It was a response to a gap in the literature and the candidate’s own experiences. The study rests on original research with several female finance directors in the sector, which aimed to elicit their responses to a variety of questions on their background, education, motivation and ability to negotiate and overcome challenges within their roles. The aim was to understand their expectations and influences and to consider ways in which female finance directors might differ from their counterparts in other sectors. The focus was on their lived experiences and the barriers and success factors that they have experienced. A review of the main theories on female underrepresentation and gender inequality is presented and discussed in the literature review. The study utilises a feminist methodology; one that seeks the female perspective and solutions. Semi-structured interviews were conducted by the candidate to collect data. The most salient data from the interviews are presented in the findings chapter. The primary data is compared with the literature. This allowed for key theories to be developed based on the data from the interviews. The study makes several contributions. Among these is the finding that there remain social and cultural barriers to female progression, but they are not as significant as they once were. The work demonstrates that female leaders lack critical awareness of how their career impacts the prospects of other ambitious women in finance. The women often failed to understand how their behaviours impacted other women. While they are willing to stand up for women’s rights, they have failed to create an environment where women feel valued, which is evident in the elevated number of females who leave leadership roles in finance. The work demonstrates that women are as likely to contribute to barriers as they are to remove them. For example, the women followed the same institutional career path as males and this may be unintentionally reinforcing gendered barriers. It was also shown that BAME finance directors need a ‘unique level of flexibility’. Such a level of ‘cultural flexibility’ is something that not every BAME woman is prepared to accept and this could be contributing to their underrepresentation in finance, which is not addressed in the literature. Since female finance directors may be unintentionally contributing to the slow progress being made in gender equality, the transition to gender equality is not as fast as it should be. This appears to be more of a problem in finance than in other sectors and a unique issue in the industry. Increasing the number of women in leadership roles cannot alone improve the environment for ambitious women. The study indicates that successful female finance directors need to engage in strategies to adapt to the workplace that are not acceptable to many. Female leaders must be goal-orientated, and this undermines female solidarity and unintentionally reinforces inequality. The highly competitive and target-driven nature of finance means that it is highly unlikely that there would be a ‘revolution from the top’. This has implications for those who argue that a ‘critical mass’ of women leaders can lead to real changes, especially in the finance sector. Many of the women interviewed would only support those who are like them and are task orientated. This means that female leaders are not able to act as ‘gatekeepers’ who can help to secure the promotions of more women. The study found that the women were not overly concerned by concepts such as the glass ceiling and glass cliff. The study thus contributes to the limited literature on women’s beliefs about barriers to career advancement. There are specific expectations and practices in finance that make it less attractive for women. The study makes some recommendations, for example, that there needs to be a move away from the goal-orientated approach in finance and a need to create an organisational culture aligned with what some perceive as feminine traits to improve women’s lived experience in the sector. The study proposes that women need to be taught at an early age that they need to challenge the system if other women are to succeed. Furthermore, childcare policies that support women need to be put in place at a national level as the present system is still too reliant on the personal circumstances of parents. Suggestions for further research are also provided.

‘These little things blossom and then they die because they don’t fit the world’:Inequalities, the subtle cruelties of unbelonging, and the “true academic” in “neoliberal” English academia

Record numbers of academic staff, particularly from under-represented groups, are considering alternative careers, frequently citing “neoliberal” shifts contributing to overwork, burnout, and precarious positioning as emblematic of higher education (HE) in “crisis” (McKenzie, 2021). This qualitative, interdisciplinary cultural sociology project foregrounds the experiences of academic staff in early 21st-century English HE with the aim of bringing new understanding to the continued prevalence of inequalities in this environment. Data was generated in 2017-18 through semi-structured interviews with a diverse sample of 29 academics, highlighting the role of identity in who ‘fits the world’, ‘blossoms’, or ‘dies’. The research explores systemic inequalities and power, which are considered through the lens of belonging in relation to ideals and values circulating in English HE culture stemming from both traditional “ivory tower” and contemporary “neoliberal” cultures. Data analysis informed three core concepts—“unbelonging”, the “proper academic”, and “legibility zones”—and proposes that to avoid a sense of unbelonging an individual must be legible as a proper academic by achieving particular forms of success across various sites of belonging, which are divided into three zones: institutional/administrative, ideological/philosophical, and individual/biographical. The thesis argues that some belonging sites bind into over-arching and inter-related narratives, creating cumulative ideals that are profoundly exclusionary but not always or entirely “neoliberal”. One such narrative is that of the “true academic” or “academic’s academic”, a sub-type of the proper academic constructed through the core beliefs “academia is a vocation”, “knowledge is inherently good”, and “proper academic practice is single-minded and altruistic”. Together these contribute to the widespread but subtle cruelties of unbelonging and illegibility, fostering individual anxiety and (re)producing systemic inequalities. The research concludes that emulating the true academic involves prioritising unattainable and politicised ideals rendering many academic participants conflicted, disillusioned, ambivalent, and ripe for unsustainable (self-)exploitation