|
|
|
Book Review
| Joan Eveline, Ivory Basement Leadership: Power and Invisibility in the Changing University, University of Western Australia Press, Crawley WA, 2004. pp. xii + 259. $38.95 paper.
|
| In 1996, the NTEU and a team of researchers led by Belinda Probert began work on the first national study of pay equity in Australian higher education. At that time there were two women Vice-Chancellors, only seven per cent of female academics held rank above senior lecturer, and vast numbers of women were employed on fixed term contracts. Most women were still located in the lower academic and general staff classifications. For the all the work on women, gender, and equal opportunity done over the preceding two decades, it seemed little had changed in the university. Restrictions on contract employment gained by the Union in industrial law in 1998 dramatically improved the career path for women, opening upper classification levels to more women. Eveline's study shows that while these material barriers are important, unpacking gender discrimination requires a more complex critique of the cultural practices of universities, and the men and women who inhabit them. |
1
|
|
One of the most important contributions that this book makes is to argue that innovation in our universities, a word much used by current policy makers, depends upon the degree to which new models of leadership, work design, and collegiality acknowledge, value and build upon the energy and creativity of those that work in the 'ivory basement'. In this respect, she overturns the assumption that hierarchical managerialism is efficacious for universities, arguing that it actually restrains the ways in which universities might meet the demands of internal change through restructuring, and external change through the impact of globalisation. The strength for these arguments come from the many voices, both from the 'tower' and from the 'basement' that are included in her text. Interestingly, she engages both from the perspective of equality feminism and the politics of difference — terms such as 'companionate' and 'post-heroic' deliberately subvert the instrumentalist and individualistic assumptions often voiced by some of the men quoted in her study. These concepts emerge as powerful new ways, not just 'to do gender', but also 'to do leadership' using collective and collaborative strategies. |
2
|
|
The focus for the study is the University of Western Australia (UWA), a research-intensive university that avoided the amalgamation process of the 1980s and early 1990s. The university is located in a state where political power was very much in the hands of men, and where very little had changed in the university until the arrival of a new female Vice-Chancellor, Fay Gale, upset established patterns. The leadership shown by Gale in supporting the gender audits of the University, building support within the university executive for a new leadership program for academic and general staff women, was real and lasting. The later engagement with issues of diversity, both within the student body as well as in the employment profile of UWA gained considerable recognition both among the staff and students, as well as with community groups outside the university. The fact that Gale herself, at her farewell function, surrounded by senior women from across higher education, acknowledged that it would take much more to overturn the power of male influence in the state, politics, and even in the university, showed the vulnerability of such change. Yet, there is much to celebrate in the steps taken at UWA, so painstakingly recorded in this book. Whether, as Eveline urges us, we are able to embrace her 'post-heroic leadership' model, and make the shift from individual achievement to supportive networks and eschew the 'old images of command and control', is yet to be proven. What is clear is that the aspirations and articulations of the 'basement' contributors to her study remain critical to our survival as vibrant, independent learning and research institutions. |
3
|
|
In the end, Eveline reminds us that the requirement for somebody to take responsibility for domestic work still lies at the heart of any real capacity for women to leverage their voice and their value. While there were remarkable similarities between the aspirations of male and female academics reported in the pay equity study, there was substantial divergence in their rates of pay, promotion, and career advancement, particularly for general staff. The vast majority of women employed at Higher Education Worker (HEW) levels 4-6 held degree qualifications, but seemed unable to advance above HEW 6. Yet men with comparable education and work experience dominated the upper levels of general staff. The study found that decisions taken about domestic responsibilities, and the devaluing of such work by our institutions were central to the lack of effective career choice for both men and women. The voices Eveline has raised from the 'basement', especially in the latter chapters of the book, challenge us to use new collaborative and companionate concepts of leadership to champion work and family balance, relational and communication skills undervalued in our workplaces, and more family friendly working hour regimes. |
4
|
|
While Eveline provides many strategies for contesting old gendered practices, and these strategies will be familiar to most readers, it is less clear whether they are strong enough to deal with the current intense contesting of those very values that lie at the heart of her analysis — autonomy, collective and collaborative identities, diversity and gender. |
5
|
| | | | |
| National President, National Tertiary Education Union |
CAROLYN ALLPORT | |
|
Content in the History Cooperative database is intended for personal, noncommercial use only. You may not reproduce, publish, distribute, transmit, participate in the transfer or sale of, modify, create derivative works from, display, or in any way exploit the History Cooperative database in whole or in part without the written permission of the copyright holder.
|