A study on what many of us already know: over 75% of internal service work in academia is done by women. The bit that gets me:”The male associate professors in particular made it clear that they actively engaged in evasiveness and did not want to participate if it was not positive for their careers”
For me it was this, which we all knew happened, but still!
“Several said that they actively didn’t respond to emails, or acted in an exaggerated disorganised manner. This meant they were assigned fewer tasks, but were also less frequently asked, and thus got away without doing service.”
One of the worst things I've seen was the staff with the highest service contributions being put into humiliating 'performance management' because they weren't seen as achieving enough..
The part that I most relate to is the ppl who won't answer emails. They always frame this in terms of lefty ideals like protecting their time from neoliberal admins etc - in reality, what they're doing is dumping work on their own colleagues.
Can somebody explain this to me? Maybe I'm just too much of a union person to understand, but if there's work related to your job that a) you won't personally benefit from doing, either through extra pay or otherwise; and b) you won't be fired/ harmed for not doing it... why would anyone do it?
A certain big cheese at a certain former employer hijacked my instrument user group and asked me to do the organisational things for the seminar series that was my idea in the first place, "booking rooms, organising refreshments, that sort of thing". I said maybe to his face and no by email.
As a queer academic I've seen this for my whole academic career. More care and service work also falls to queer, working class, and POC staff, as well as women--it's intersectional! Would love to see this study expanded.
I can attest to my own observations that this is 100% correct. I've sat on so many committees that were all female. I've attended campus events that had few men in attendance (and rarely any on the groups that sponsored the events). Getting them to volunteer is like pulling teeth.
“Several said that they actively didn’t respond to emails, or acted in an exaggerated disorganised manner. This meant they were assigned fewer tasks, but were also less frequently asked, and thus got away without doing service.”
Weaponised incompetence.
“Several said that they actively didn’t respond to emails, or acted in an exaggerated disorganised manner. This meant they were assigned fewer tasks, but were also less frequently asked, and thus got away without doing service.” 😑
Yup, tracks with my experience, too.
And even in a department that was overwhelmingly female (excluding emeriti), if male associates didn’t do the extra labor, it did not hurt their chance at TT, but if female associates didn’t donate their time, they wouldn’t get consideration for TT.
It's why so many of us found a way to move into some sort of lower-level admin and remained Assoc. until retirement... Not worth the fight at the end of one's career.
My employer has signalled to staff that promotion criteria are going to take much more account of 'service' and insist on it being performed in quality and quantity, as they have noted an increasing number of staff (often male) opting out of big jobs. Whether this has an impact will be interesting.
Women acceding to group leadership positions are touted as the vanguard of a new equitable era when it's just the loss of social capital in university level academia & research as in HS teaching before that. Doing more & more until we do it all for less money & the previous currency, "prestige".
This other professor grabbed my forearm as I was leaving a seminar and told me to organize his big important event, including catering. While sort of…milking…my arm? I broke his feeble grip and said no while staring him down. He was pretty shocked, like this usually worked for him