Performing gender in the workplace: gender socialization, power, and identity among women faculty members.

Organizational cultures shape and reinforce socially appropriate roles for men and women. Drawing on a performativity framework, which assumes that gender is socially constructed through gendered "performances," this study employs interviews with and observations of six women faculty members to examine how dominant discourses define and maintain the formation of gender roles within a community college context. The experiences of one of these faculty members, a welding instructor, are highlighted. Results indicate that the women faculty members performed a variety of stereotypical feminine gender roles based on (a) socialization experiences external to the college, (b) socialization within the college's organizational culture, and (c) the individual's construction and negotiation of gender identity.

Keywords: performance theory; gender, women faculty; identity

**********

Yes, I get a lot of people from industry, and they need to understand that I take my job seriously. It is unfortunate, but automatically when they see you are a woman, they don't take you seriously. There's a certain seriousness and distance that you need to keep, but that is not me. So you just have to do that to be effective, but I try not to be, you know. The essence is the same, but the delivery is the difference. I can be more compassionate and loving at home.

Rosa, Architecture professor

In this job there are dress issues. Most guys, like this one guy who has a ponytail and is attractive, he wears jeans and he looks great. I came in this summer a couple of times dressed like that, in a jeans and t-shirt, people say, "Hey '60s throwback." Dress is clearly an issue. There's gender stuff operating. It pisses me off that I feel like I have to. I guess that I don't have to. Some women come in dressed how they want. I guess I don't want to go through not being respected. I just don't want to undercut being respected. I don't want to make it an issue.

Susan, English professor

Over the last several decades, organizational scholars have noted the prevalence of organizational discourses and social practices that characterize appropriate roles for men and women. These roles include nurturing, caretaking, and exhibiting additional interest in the emotional health of students and fellow faculty members (Blackwell, 1996; Boice, 1993; Dallimore, 2003; Stein, 1994; Tierney & Bensimon, 1996). Tierney and Bensimon (1996) found in a study of promotion and tenure practices that women faculty members perceive that they are expected to perform "mom" and "smile" work, maintaining a caring and nurturing demeanor while also avoiding confrontation. Women faculty members also perform the "glue work" of the academic department by participating at greater rates then their male counterparts in service activities that often keep departments and universities functioning (Eveline, 2004; Tierney & Bensimon, 1996). Furthermore, women in leadership roles are expected to fit the leadership images of "philosopher-kings and military heroes that render women invisible" (Amey & Twombly, 1992, p. 476). Women are often signaled early in their careers that traditional male traits are expected in senior administrative roles and that promotion depends on their ability to act like men (Tedrow & Rhoades, 1999).

Similarly, several researchers have noted that women faculty members feel obligated to advise a disproportionate share of students, conduct research that addresses gender relations, and perform "emotional work" that provides emotional support to colleagues and students, thus reinforcing traditional feminine roles (Acker & Feuerverger, 1996; Bird, Litt, & Wang, 2004; Knights & Richards, 2003; Tierney & Bensimon, 1996). Although the emotional work "is necessary and beneficial to educational institutions" (Knights & Richards, 2003, p. 223), women do not find it beneficial to their careers. In fact, when women satisfy all the various responsibilities expected of them, including caring for others and being "good" faculty citizens, they acknowledge that the reward system does not value all of the caring and citizenship roles they carry out, leaving them to feel unfulfilled (Acker & Feuerverger, 1996).

The literature on gender roles and faculty work paints a complex picture of the various ways that women are constrained into traditionally feminine roles. However, we know less about how these roles affect individual identity. The few studies that address identity issues among women and minority faculty members describe significant cultural conflicts that arise as individuals attempt to negotiate their own identity in an ethnically homogenous and male-dominated academic culture (Johnsrud & Sadao, 1998; Turner, 2002; Turner, Myers, & Creswell, 1999). To expand our understanding of women faculty members and identity, I focus on gendered performances (or "doing gender") and on how social practices define gendered behaviors in the context of a community college. Specifically, this study addresses the following research questions:

1. What do female community college faculty members believe are appropriate gender roles?

2. What social practices and discourses communicate and reify appropriate gendered performances as defined by roles?

3. What is the relationship between gender roles, performances, and individual gender identity?

Gendered performances, a concept derived from performativity theory, are an expression of the social norms and gender roles within an organization and help us understand how particular performances are favored within organizations and how, in turn, individual gender identity is constructed and complicated by performances. The quotes at the beginning of this article illustrate gendered performance. The architecture instructor, Rosa, describes how she hides her feminine identity and maintains a tough persona to gain respect among her colleagues and students. Susan describes how she dresses in a manner that she perceives as appropriate and respectful. These women and their experiences describe how female faculty members perceive gender roles, behaviors, and expectations in the context of a community college and the discourses and social practices that communicate gender roles and behaviors. By identifying the social norms and roles that define the expected gendered behaviors that faculty members perform or resist, the subtle organizational cultural practices that discriminate against women and prevent gender equity will be uncovered.

In what follows, I provide a review of the literature on organizational discourses and practices concerning gender. This literature provides the framework for understanding how individuals come to know gender roles within an organization. This is followed by a discussion of the theory of performativity and how this theory serves as a major conceptual and methodological lens for this study. After a review of the research design, a detailed narrative of one of the study participants is provided to highlight how women faculty members are socialized into, perform, and negotiate gender roles in a higher education institution.

Review of the Literature

For the last few decades, feminists have examined the various ways in which gender roles (and ideologies) are communicated and embedded in organizational practices (Acker, 1990; Bailyn, 1993, 2003; Ely, 1994, 1995; Ely & Meyerson, 2000; Kanter, 1977; Martin, 1996, 2003). Gender is partially constructed and reinforced by organizational processes, including social interactions between workers, salary differentials, and the ways in which work is segregated and divided by paid and unpaid labor (Acker, 1990). The construction of gender in organizations occurs via four social phenomena: (a) the construction of divisions along lines of gender, (b) symbols and cultural images, (c) informal social interactions, and (d) organizational narratives (Acker, 1990; Ely & Meyerson, 2000). The first category, the construction of divisions along lines of gender, includes the way in which labor is divided, the physical space of offices or laboratory space, and access to decision making. Each of these constructs determines who has power and privilege within the organization. In addition, the imbalance between men and women in organizations has been found to significantly affect the gender identity of female workers, influence the structures and norms that informally create barriers to the advancement of women, impact the adoption and use of family leave policies, lead to fewer women seeking advancement, and create more salary inequity (Bellas, 1997; Chliwniak, 1997; Ely, 1994, 1995; Kanter, 1977). Furthermore, the proportion of women in an academic department is related to the extent to which women feel welcomed in the department. Having fewer women in a department is associated with increased perceptions of an organizational climate that is hostile toward women (Riger, Stokes, Raja, & Sullivan, 1997).

The second category of social practices includes symbols and cultural images of idealized heroic workers that are aligned with masculine traits. Heroic workers are defined as always-available workers who have the ability to prioritize work over other responsibilities. The heroic worker ideology is reinforced by images and norms of individualistic heroes who are fully committed to all activities that are associated with the organization (Rapoport et al., 1996). Women who traditionally hold more household responsibilities are disadvantaged by evaluations that are based on time spent on the job or on the willingness to be flexible with extra work hours (Ely & Meyerson, 2000; Halford & Leonard, 2001). In faculty jobs, the image of an ideal worker is no different. With evaluations rooted in productivity, women faculty members in all disciplines face evaluation criteria that favor men and women who do not have children or extensive family responsibilities (Armenti, 2004; Bailyn, 2003; Benschop & Brouns, 2003; Rosser, 2002; Wolf-Wendel & Ward, 2003). Women faculty members consistently cite pressure to postpone pregnancy or relent on their aspirations for childbearing to acquire tenure, or they limit job searches to specific geographic regions because of their parental responsibilities (Aisenberg & Harrington, 1988; Armenti, 2004; Bronstein, Black, Pfenning, & White, 1986, 1987; Elliott, 2003).

The third category includes informal social interactions that create and reinforce patterns of dominance and submission, thereby reinforcing the organizational norms of femininity and masculinity. These interactions legitimize the differences between men and women and "reduce the scope for action of others not only through influencing overt behavior, but also by ideological, symbolic and disciplinary means" (Alvesson & Due Billing, 1997, p. 73). The way in which men present themselves and embody masculinity reinforces an idealized monolithic category of male and female (Ely & Meyerson, 2000). Style of dress, use of language, and expression of emotions reinforce representations of what is masculine and feminine, widening further the divisions of gender within the organization. Social interactions are both subtle and blatant. Subtle interactions include expectations to perform both masculine and feminine qualities. As a result, women may feel excluded by colleagues, experience intimidating behaviors by students, and receive unfair treatment in the tenure and promotion evaluations (Bronstein & Farnsworth, 1998; Pini, 2005; (1) Winkler, 2000). Blatant interactions are exemplified in the prevalence of sexual harassment. Women faculty members are found to experience inappropriate sexual attention at rates far greater than men regardless of the length of time they have been employed at their institutions (Bronstein & Farnsworth, 1998; Dey, Korn, & Sax, 1996; Sandler &Shoop, 1997).

Finally, organizational narratives disguise and perpetuate the gendered nature of social practices (Ely & Meyerson, 2000; Olsson, 2002). Narratives about gender and gendered traits support distinctions between masculinity and femininity and create a sense of an "objective" reality. The narratives are not just the opinions of the storyteller, but also an indication of reality or "the way things are" in the organization. As Clark (1972) states, "An organizational saga is a powerful means of unity in the formal workplace. It makes links across internal divisions and organizational boundaries as internal and external groups share their common beliefs" (p. 183). Gender roles and norms are communicated and perpetuated in organizational sagas that create an appearance of gender neutrality; gendered practices and ideologies are just "the ways things are" and function as exemplars of gendered practices and behaviors (Kaye, 1995). They are the organizational reality that is devoid of discriminatory practices.

The description of the four ways in which gender operates within organizations provides the framework for understanding how individuals come to know gender roles within an organization. For example, the way in which labor is divided, the physical space of offices or laboratory space, access to decision making, and the proportion of men to women in a department serve to divide work along lines of gender and construct gender roles within the organization. Each of these categories is not discrete, but operates simultaneously and creates a system that continuously defines and reinforces gender alongside power within organizations. However, the four-part gender and organizations framework discussed above does not explain how and why women choose to participate in these gendered social practices or how these practices are reinforced within the organizational context. To describe how social practices are replicated, represented, and reinforced, I turn to performativity. The performances serve as representations of the gendered social practices and roles that simultaneously reinforce social arrangements based on gender.

Theoretical Framework

In her groundbreaking book Gender Trouble, Butler (1990) theorizes that gender is a socially constructed category created during gendered "performances." Refuting previous claims of the existence of gender norms, Butler argues that feminine or masculine performances create the ideology of gender. Gender emerges as a reality only to the extent that it is performed. Butler claims that individuals do not entirely act out a set of predetermined gender roles; rather, the roles are established, recreated, and reinforced within the performances. Butler (1990) explains that by agreeing to "perform, produce, and sustain discrete and polar genders as cultural fictions ... the construction 'compels' our belief in its necessity and naturalness" (p. 178). It is within the act of performing that gender norms are defined and seen as natural. In this regard, gender does not exist outside of the performance; there is no preconceived notion of gender that is based on biological fact or other functionalist conceptions. Rather, gender and how it is perceived are constituted within the performances. In addition, gender identity is created through the performances. An individual's gender identity is discursively constituted as the effect rather than the cause--an individual's identity does not exist behind the performance, but is created by the performance itself. To further explain the theory of performativity, I now turn to an explanation of its main tenets: identity, agency, and power.

The first tenet of performativity is identity, which refers to the conscious and unconscious thoughts or ways in which an individual understands herself in relation to the world. Within performativity, an individual's identity is created and recreated through discourse. Identity is thus precarious and unstable. By decentering the subject and presupposing that individual identity is created through discourse, identity can be changed at any given moment. Therefore, identity is not a fixed state of being, but a fluid process that is able to change. Multiple and competing identities exist simultaneously with individuals choosing to perform each identity based on the contexts in which they find themselves.

Choosing to perform one's gender means navigating gender norms and individual agency. One's gender identity (and performances) are determined to the extent that social norms support and enable the performances. The content of the performances is determined by social convention, thus limiting individual agency. Butler (2004) acknowledges that "the physical body is that which can occupy the norm in myriad ways, exceed the norm, rework the norm, and expose realities to which we thought we were confined" (p. 215). Agency is not entirely limited, and by overperforming or resisting the norm, the norm is exposed and has the potential for social transformation. Importantly, agency and resistance are not without consequences. As will become clear in the following discussion of power, agency is further limited by hegemony.

For Butler (2004), gender identity stands at a paradox where gender regulations (e.g., power) work to paralyze agency. Put simply, certain identities are aligned with power and considered more contextually appropriate, thus limiting the scope of agency and identity. Individuals may choose to represent and perform a gendered identity, but they must consider the implications of resistance or assimilation. Interpreting Foucault, Butler (2004) states, "regulatory power not only acts upon a preexisting subject but also shapes and forms that subject" (p. 41). Regulatory power operates on gender and has its own disciplinary regime, which primarily functions as a norm. "A norm operates within social practice as the implicit standard of normalization" and "is a measurement and a means of producing a common standard, to become an instance of the norm is not fully to exhaust the norm" (p. 50). Certain cultural configurations (or norms) of gender have seized a hegemonic hold. For, "to veer from the gender norm is to produce the aberrant example that regulatory powers (medical, psychiatric, and legal, to name a few) may quickly exploit to shore up the rational for their continuing regulatory zeal" (Butler, 2004, p. 52). When one resists hegemonic gender norms, regulatory powers, such as the law and medical diagnosis, work to identify those actions as inappropriate and problematic.

Butler's performativity is thus essential in this study, because it establishes the socially constructed nature of gender as well as how social practices and roles are replicated, represented, and reinforced. First, the ways in which gender is performed embody those social practices that are contextually defined. Watching how individuals represent gender by dress, mannerism, and social interactions, for example, provides clues as to how the culture and context define gender roles. Second, the way in which an individual performs in relation to those contextually and culturally performed roles indicates forms of acceptance or resistance. Forms of power are made evident by understanding the nature of resistance. Third, by virtue of performing gender, one reinforces and replicates social norms and roles, legitimizing their existence. As Butler (2004) states, "What this means is that through the practice of gender performativity, we not only see how the norms that govern reality are cited but grasp one of the mechanisms by which reality is reproduced and altered in the course of that reproduction" (p. 218). Finally, performativity conceptualizes a connection between performing gender and gender identity. Individuals do not just perform gender roles as a character fictitiously adopts roles for a play; rather, individuals perform roles in relation to their identity and often recreate and reinforce their gender identity through the act of performing. Performing gender is a site for the deconstruction of how and why individuals interpret and maintain dominant organizational gender roles and how these roles affect individual identity.

Research Design

To explore gendered performances among faculty members, I conducted an ethnographic case study (Merriam, 1988; Spradley, 1979) relying on the perspectives of critical ethnography. Critical ethnography disrupts the status quo by bringing forth underlying operations of power and control. Going beyond descriptions of social life, it refines social theory (Carspecken, 1996). A case study is "chosen precisely because researchers are interested in insight, discovery, and interpretation rather than hypothesis testing" (Merriam, 1988, p. 10). An ethnographic case study provides in-depth descriptions of the culture being studied and allows members to tell their stories (Van Maanen, 1988). Because the definitions and identification of gender roles are culturally specific, this research design assisted in uncovering the individual ways in which socializing experiences and organizational practices are characterized. It also allowed the researcher to observe individual faculty members and their performances of gender in many different contexts (e.g., meetings, classrooms, etc.).

Study Sample and Data Collection

This study relies on interviews with and observations of six full-time women faculty members at an urban community college. A community college was chosen because of the historically large representation of women on the faculty and the varying proportions of men to women across departments (i.e., subcultures). To understand the importance of departmental culture on gendered performances, two departments were selected based on the number and availability of women faculty members and on the academic or vocational status of the departments. Selection criteria for the study participants included full-time status and employment at the institution for more than 2 years; the goal was to include three women in an academic department with high female representation and three women in a vocational department with low female representation. The resulting sample is detailed in Table 1. The selection criteria allowed for a comparison across departmental type (academic versus vocational) and across departments with variable gender representation.

The interviews and observations were conducted over a 4-month time frame. All participants were interviewed 5 times, and each interview lasted approximately 1 hour. In addition, each participant was observed on 6 occasions. Altogether, there were 30 interviews and 36 observations, constituting approximately 170 hours of interaction with the participants. The interviews focused on perceptions of cultural norms of gender, how women are socialized into cultural norms of gender, and gender identity. All observations were conducted either while the participant was teaching or attending meetings. The observations gave visibility to women's experiences (Reinharz, 1992) and allowed the researcher to witness performances of gender and question the participants about those performances in subsequent interviews. Extensive field and observation notes were taken with attention to the ways in which women faculty members interacted with students and colleagues, understood the symbols and sagas encountered throughout the college, perceived the exercise of power in the organization, and performed their gender through a variety of means, including attention to dress, mannerisms, and language.

Data Analysis

All interviews were transcribed and analyzed inductively and deductively for common themes related to gender roles and behaviors, socialization into gender roles, and gender identity. Because much of the data was in a narrative or story format, narrative analysis was also conducted. Narrative analysis examines a participant's story (or a series of stories), analyzing the structure, words and phrases, and language used to describe the culture. To analyze the interview data, I used two techniques: data reduction and interpretation. Data reduction is the process of reducing the text into short phrases and organizing the narrative into a core narrative that described how the women faculty members understood gender roles in the college (Riessman, 1993). To choose the pertinent stories from the transcripts that related to gender, I first selected those pieces of text that addressed gender broadly. I then began the process of retranscribing the narratives into the narrative core of abstract, orientation, complicating action, and resolution.

The second technique used is interpretation that situates the narratives in social, cultural, and institutional discourses (Riessman, 1993). Using the retranscribed narratives derived from the data reduction process, I situated and compared the narratives with the observation data. This analysis helped call attention to the organization of responses and to the subtleties of social discourses that reveal and shape individual interpretations of gender. For example, the participants' choice of stories, their characterization of gender, and the ways they resolved gender conflicts experienced within the organization revealed their understanding of gender, their gender identity, and how gender is understood within the context of the college.

To validate the study findings, I relied on the assumptions of triangulation articulated by Stake (1995), who describes triangulation as a process of understanding the possibility of nuances and individual experiences that situate human experience without relying on congruency between multiple sources of data. The veracity of the data in this study does not fall under the positivistic paradigm of establishing a "true" reality. The authenticity of this study is found in the comparison of multiple sources of data. Authenticity of the data, therefore, was established by conducting thorough observations and by questioning the behaviors and beliefs of the participants during the interviews. Furthermore, the perspective of performativity theory did not preclude openness to other perspectives. The author looked for counter narratives that would potentially reject the framework and conducted member checks--the process of sharing written interpretations of the data with research participants--to verify interpretations. Member checks allowed for a dialogue with the participants to provide more accurate research results.

Interpretations

In this section, I review the major research findings of this study. Because the analysis is based on the individual narratives, I first present and describe the overarching themes and then use the narrative of one of the participants, Arlene, to provide a rich description of the study findings. There are three main themes that emerged from the interviews and observations and that are related to organizational construction of gender roles and gender performances. Each of these themes is organized in three acts similar to those in a play. (2) First, the study participants were found to construct gender roles prior to becoming faculty members. These gender socialization experiences external to the college were often compared and contrasted with the college's gender roles. Influences of external gender socialization included societal images and symbols, family influence, and vocational culture. For example, Arlene, the welding faculty member, was strongly influenced by societal images of a welder. She was often discriminated against for her chosen profession. External influences were strongest among those faculty members who were in vocational programs that are male dominated.

The next theme is organizational culture socialization that identifies how individuals come to understand gender within the context of the college. Social interactions with colleagues often resulted in workplace bullying, classroom dynamics, tokenism, and other experiences within the college that influenced how the participants perceived and performed gender in the workplace. Memorable negative interactions with male colleagues defined the appropriate behaviors.

Finally, one of the goals of this study was to understand the intersection of gender roles, performances, and individual identity. Specifically, I sought to determine how and if performing gender influenced identity. The last theme of construction and negotiation of identity describes how the participants negotiated their individual identity with gender role expectations. In some cases, the participants actively managed their gender performance to suit the gender roles while maintaining and hiding their gender identity. At other times, the participants adopted those roles as identities, thus constructing new, complex gender identities.

To illustrate the individual differences and complexities of each of the themes, Arlene's narrative is described below. A summary of these themes as revealed in the experiences of the other research participants is included in the appendix.

Arlene: The Welder

Act 1: Gender Socialization External to the Faculty Work Environment

One of the major themes that emerged from the narratives of the women faculty members is the prominence of gender socialization external to faculty work. Because Arlene worked primarily in the welding industry before entering faculty work, she had very prominent socializing experiences related to her gender and to her chosen career as a welder. These experiences are related both to her token status as a woman welder and to the masculinity of the construction profession.

The majority of commercial welding is completed on construction sites. Heavy machinery, cranes, building materials, and large groups of men populate the sites. On these construction sites, masculinity is the norm. Arlene explained that sexually explicit jokes, toughness, and physical prowess were common traits that the men expressed. To survive in this masculine culture, Arlene initially conformed. She adopted a tough and unemotional persona.

   In nontraditional, you can't show your weaknesses. If some guy said
   something to me at work and he knows I went to my car and cried
   that would be the end of it, I would get it twice as bad. I have to
   say, "That is all you have, can't you come up with something better
   than that. My Mama tells better jokes." I have to jump in their
   face, but then I would go to my car and call my mom and cry. I
   would act tough. I always had that wall. I have to be so tough.
   When I was younger, I definitely played the role. I was very
   physical.

While Arlene was working on the construction sites, she put on a performance of toughness. She felt as if she had to maintain that role or "I would get it twice as bad." What is troubling is the expectation of abuse that Arlene felt she would encounter if she did not act tough. Crying in front of the men was not an option. She had to form a wall, despite the emotional strain that these encounters caused.

Arlene, however, found that acting tough and performing masculinity was not the long-term solution to working in the masculine culture. Arlene explained that the other male workers began to reject her when she intruded on the masculine sphere. They would criticize her for "showing off" if she welded too well. Arlene explained, "There was a lot of pressure to act like everyone else. The men would sometimes get angry that I would weld better. Arlene is showing off." In addition, the men were verbally abusive to the women who acted masculine, calling them gay or butch. Arlene began to intentionally adopt a new persona that acknowledged her femininity and allowed her male colleagues to view her as submissive.

   When I worked on the job, I would sometimes act feminine. One day I
   cut my finger. It was a little cut. I started screaming and men
   came to help. They said look at Arlene, she is acting like a girl.
   I would tell my mom about how the men would treat me. She said,
   "Let the work speak for itself." I would let the men carry the big
   pipes.

Arlene also altered her appearance to appear as more feminine. "I would go to the job with my hair done and at that time it was $25 a shot. I would go three days a week, that was $75 a week and that's just to keep my hair groomed."

From the moment that Arlene began working in the welding profession, she encountered the masculine culture of the industry and had to contend with navigating gender dynamics. To appease her male colleagues and to prevent further backlash, Arlene adopted an intentional work persona that combined the qualities of femininity and masculinity. She continued to work on the construction sites successfully by overperforming femininity in an all-male sphere. These experiences of learning her position in relation to societal expectations of a welder and her experiences in the construction sites are precursors to her life as a faculty member. Arlene takes these experiences and strategies into her faculty work.

Act 2: Organizational Culture Socialization

In contrast to the gender role and norm socialization that occurred outside of the college, Arlene experienced socialization into new gender roles and norms within the college. At times, the nature of the gender roles mirrored stereotypical societal expectations of the women's role, such as the role of women as departmental caretakers. And at times, the gender roles mirrored stereotypical masculine roles as reflected in how the hypermasculinity of the welding industry overlapped into the welding classroom. Arlene also experienced challenges by students and discrimination in a hypermasculine classroom culture.

Arlene works in the construction technologies (CT) department within Vocational Community College. The CT department is one of the largest on campus, with nine different disciplines, yet Arlene is one of the two women in the department. Arlene's office and classroom space serve as a metaphor for the masculinity of the department. Her office is located within the larger welding shop behind a caged door that slides back to reveal several old, metal desks and file cabinets. The space is antiquated, lacking any technology or semblance of an era dominated by computers. The smell of burning metal pervades the space, and the machines roar loudly while sparks fly, dancing in the air. The only feminine symbols in the office and shop are the little metal hearts that are scattered across Arlene's desk. As the only woman in this masculine space, Arlene often finds that her male colleagues expect her to play the typical women's role. Arlene explains, "I will be at a meeting and be forced to take notes. I tell them, not me. I am a welder. I don't know how to write. It is the idea of why would you just pick me. Because they see me, you know [as the only woman]." She continues:

   So, "Arlene why don't you make the coffee?" Once in a while that is
   just the way it happens, and I don't know if they were trying to be
   malicious. It is just for so long that this was the women's role.
   You take the notes, you make the coffee. If the offices are dirty,
   you clean off my desk. What does this have to do with me teaching?
   They will expect you to teach the classroom work. And they will do
   the hands-on. You are teaching blueprints because, quote unquote,
   females could always read books. It happens.

During the few meetings that Arlene attends each year, she is often the only woman. She finds that she is expected to play the typical woman's secretarial role. Because Arlene learned on the construction sites how to manipulate a scene in which she is expected to perform the woman's role, she has developed strategies to counteract those expectations. Arlene uses humor to resist the expectation that she should be the meeting secretary. Despite the resistance, this experience also shapes Arlene's perception of the departmental culture. Faculty culture is not too dissimilar from the construction sites; she is still expected to perform the woman's role.

The culture of the classroom is another site where Arlene became socialized into the gender dynamics of faculty work. The student population is primarily male and often mimics many male-dominated cultures. In any given semester, Arlene will have only one or two women students in her class, and these women students are often marginalized by the dominating male majority. During her first day of teaching, Arlene encountered a startling and memorable experience that shaped her perception of the difference between teaching generally and teaching welding specifically:

   The first day I went to teach a class I had on some good 3-inch
   heels, pumps with a suit, Ann Taylor or something. A silk blouse
   and it was a light silver. My nails were done. It was my first day
   of class, and I was 21, and the students came in saying, "Where is
   the instructor?" I said I was the instructor and they said, "You.
   It is not bad enough that they gave us a lady but you have on
   heels." There was this one guy I will never forget. I was at Urban
   College. He was Hispanic and said, "I know this is ... [name of
   college] so they just gave us anybody, but it is bad enough that
   they go and give us a lady and she has the nerve to have on a
   skirt." The whole class, 30 something students, just laughed and I
   was about to cry. I was thinking this was not in the book of
   techniques of teaching. The teacher did not tell me they were going
   to act like this. I was talking, and they were still laughing. I
   was writing my name and passing out papers, they were still
   laughing. My voice was going down; it is cracking and in my head
   I'm thinking God please help me through this. I never came in a
   skirt again.

This is one of the most startling and blatant narratives in this study, because it illustrates how one experience within the context of the college can alter behavior. Despite Arlene's experience on the construction sites and her understanding of gender dynamics within the welding industry, she believed that the teaching profession would not have the same dynamics. She was clearly mistaken and quickly corrected. The impact of this experience cannot be overstated. It was this one experience that led to Arlene permanently altering her performance. Arlene has a particular uniform in the welding shop at Vocational Community College. She wears a black, long-sleeve shirt to cover her arms from the dancing sparks that fall just to the right of her as she sculpts and bonds two pieces of hard steel. Looking closely, there are small holes in her shirt where sparks have landed. Her pants and shoes are black and look comfortable on her six-foot-two frame. Arlene often shuffles around the shop with a strong, determined, and unforgettable presence. Arlene's appearance is masculine and understated to prevent her gender from being a distraction as she teaches highly masculine male students.

In the context of the classroom, students often question Arlene and challenge her authority and credibility. To maintain respect and repress challenges from the students, Arlene feels that she has to be tough and stern. When asked if she acts differently at work than at home, she explains, "Yes, when I work I tend to be more stern because of what I do. At home, I tend to play the clown and I think that I am more myself there than at work. I am playful and easygoing." Arlene has often had students challenge her abilities as a welder and her authority as an instructor. She states, "You have to be good because the students will challenge you." In the classroom, Arlene speaks in a strong tone, demands that students be on time and rejects late homework. She performs in a tough and stern manner by dominating the classroom, and she demonstrates her superior welding abilities during the laboratory portion of the course. The possibility of being challenged by her students has resulted in Arlene altering her work persona. Similar to acting tough on the construction sites, Arlene feels the need to be sterner in the classroom.

Arlene's gendered performance is not as simple as a stern persona. She creatively uses the gender norms of the classroom to motivate the students. Simply, Arlene has adapted her knowledge and experience to create a positive classroom environment. Arlene explains, "When I do a demo the students will say, 'He let a girl beat you.' Those guys will get over there and be determined to weld better than me. It does motivate them." Furthermore, Arlene has a board in her office that marks the progress of each student. When the male students see that a female student has exceeded them in skill and performance, the male students tend to work additional hours in the welding laboratory to exceed the progress of a female student. After all, the male students "can't be beat by a girl." Arlene purposefully uses these demonstrations to motivate the students, and, as she claims, the male students feel the need to do better than a girl to assert their masculinity.

Each of the two acts presented thus far illustrates how Arlene has come to understand the gender dynamics of the welding industry, the organization, the department, and the classroom. Her experiences with discrimination in the welding industry socialized her to understand her role as a female welder and to understand the expectations of women faculty members in a male-dominated department. In addition, the gender dynamics within each of these cultures often overlapped. The masculine culture of the welding trade, for example, was represented in the classroom. Arlene's perceptions have led to an intentional gender performance that combines many of the qualities of masculinity and femininity. The process of constructing a performance is not linear. An experience alone, for example, does not directly result in a new or altered gendered performance. Rather, it is the process of coming to understand gender dynamics and norms and how each of these subjectivities is valued within the specific context. This process is constantly occurring as gender norms are reconstructed from each experience. Arlene's hybrid performance was constructed from her initial experiences in the welding profession, but also by those experiences within the context of the college. Her performances, however, did not just occur as the temporary adoption of a persona. As Act 3 illustrates, her performances were constantly negotiated with identity.

Act 3: Negotiation and Construction of Identity

Within the theory of performativity, gender does not exist outside of the performance; rather, gender identities are constituted within the performances. Individuals are continuously refining and recreating their gender identity by performing gender. Arlene intentionally constructs her performance. She uses techniques such as crying on the job site when she gets a cut to manipulate the gender dynamics of the culture. Often, these techniques are meant to prevent backlash, but each time she makes the decision to perform, she reflects on the relationship between the performance and her identity.

   Sometimes, I have to be a little more tough because I can't betray
   that role. I am not going to say that I like teddy bears. They
   already know that I am kinda girly. I have the nails, but I would
   not tell them that I cry at Disney movies, no way. I am in a role
   where if I was to actually always be me, I would not get any
   respect. Of course, I think that women have to play the role.

Arlene makes it a point to mention that she considers herself feminine. As she states, the students already know that she is "kinda girly." However, she believes that she has to play a tough role, and that role must be upheld. Importantly, the tough performance is not congruent with Arlene's identity as a woman. To negotiate those conflicting identities, she uses symbols to represent her femininity; her desk is cluttered with pictures of roses and hearts. She proudly displays a metal heart with a welding line down the middle and has pasted Mickey Mouse stickers on her black welding mask. Yet, Arlene relinquishes her true self and hides her emotions from the students.

When Arlene was beginning her welding career, she often faced the difficult negotiation of her identity as a woman and the expectations of the masculine industry.

   Welding, I knew that I had to prove that I was a lady, a girl. I
   realize it had nothing to do with my femininity. I was always a
   lady. I could go home and take those clothes off and put those
   other clothes on and still be a lady. It was not about me proving
   my womenhood, my femininity. It was about me being good at what I
   do. My mother would tell me that I did not have to prove myself, my
   work would speak for itself. As a person, you know who and what you
   are. That is what's important. Whether or not they think you are
   masculine or feminine, my mother said you have to be a confident
   women and confident in your femininity.

To negotiate her hybrid gender performance with her identity, Arlene decided that she had two spheres of life. She had the job site and home. She separated her performance on the job site and her identity as a woman.

   I always tell my female students that you don't have to lose your
   femininity. If you lose it, it was going to go anyways. Don't blame
   it on the trade. You decided not to have it. In class someone may
   perceive that I am not very feminine because my mind is not on my
   femininity. It is on doing the job. Outside I am a female. I am a
   woman. I like my trade, but I want to look pretty and I should not
   lose that when I go home. You're still a feminine women, I tell my
   students.

Her masculine performance became a reflection of the culture and not a reflection of her internal feelings as a woman. After all, she could come home and put those feminine clothes on. However, there are long-term implications to maintaining two identities and a hybrid performance.

In a few of the individual cases, the participants would reflect on how their performance has altered their identities. Arlene has been intentionally performing multiple genders throughout her career. She was once the welder who had her hair and nails groomed. Arlene intentionally separated her work identity from her internal gender identity. After 25 years of separating her identities, they have begun to overlap, constructing a new identity.

   When I would go to work I would be very well groomed. I think that
   happens consciously sometimes. We do it, and I think unconsciously
   we do it. Here I am more relaxed and lazy with my legs all over,
   with no posture, with my belly sticking out. I become the couch
   potato. But in church, even if I wore sweats, I would have matching
   tennis shoes and socks. Here my nails look bad, but on Friday I am
   going to the shop. Here the masculine part of me comes out. Now
   that you say it, I think that subconsciously, you just carry
   yourself differently in different places.

For most of Arlene's career, her masculine identity was just a performance, a mask that she intentionally put on while working. Yet, she has realized that masculinity has become a part of her identity and that it just comes out more when she is at work. Agreeing with Butler's concepts of performativity, Arlene's performance is constructing her identity. The construction of a new identity is evident when observing Arlene in the context of her role as an instructor. She dresses masculine, physically moves in a masculine manner, and communicates with the students using a serious tone and dominating demeanor. Arlene's gender identity has changed in such a manner that she has unintentionally constructed an identity that reflects a hybrid gender performance.

Over the span of 25 years, Arlene has learned to actively alter her front-stage performances to reflect the requirements of the context. Arlene often uses a combination of masculine and feminine qualities to prevent confrontation and backlash. She began to construct a hybrid performance in the welding industry to subvert criticism and discrimination while maintaining the physical requirements of the job. In her roles as a faculty member, Arlene quickly learned that similar gender dynamics apply to the welding classroom. Arlene became the token woman expected to perform the stereotypical women's role and often faced challenges from her male students. Again, Arlene used her hybrid performance to succeed and ultimately motivate her students. Performing gender and negotiating identity alongside that performance led to the construction of a work persona that transcended the backstage and actively became a part of Arlene's gender identity. Arlene's experience may appear to rely heavily on her role as a vocational instructor in a community college setting. However, all of the participants in this study, including those in more traditional academic disciplines, experienced similar gender performances. The specific nature of the organizational socialization and the specific gender roles differed, but the need to negotiate gender roles and norms with identity was consistent.

Discussion

Arlene's story and the narratives of the other participants illustrate several aspects of gender roles and norms within a community college setting. First, the roles and norms that women faculty members perform in the college are similar to those identified in the literature. The women faculty members in this study said that they are expected to perform the "mom" roles by maintaining an emotional and supportive connection to the students. Students often expected them to adhere to the traditional caretaker roles by listening to their problems and helping them succeed. Sara, an English instructor, attempted to reject the caretaker role by noting on her syllabi that she does not listen to stories by students. She explained that this addendum prevents students from automatically perceiving her as a maternal figure--a role that she did not see as part of her identity. In addition, faculty colleagues expected the women faculty to perform the "glue work"--taking meeting notes and organizing social activities--of the department. Diane, a theater arts and English instructor, noted that the women faculty members in her department were consistently called on to manage committees and organize social events. The definition of roles and norms, however, was highly dependent on the specific subculture, and the roles were often complex performances that incorporated a variety of gender stereotypes. The gender role expectations changed from the classroom, for example, to the department meetings. Whereas Arlene used humor to mitigate the expectations that she should perform the secretarial role in department meetings, she created a hybrid masculine and feminine persona in the classroom. In this regard, the women faculty members had to develop sophisticated performances that they are able to change from one moment to the next.

Second, organizational discourses and social practices diffuse throughout the college to define gender roles and norms via social interactions with colleagues and students. Arlene interacted with colleagues who expected her to carry out the role as the departmental secretary and caretaker. In the classroom, the students challenged her to maintain a masculine and authoritarian welding style while paradoxically expecting her to remain a caring and compassionate female teacher. Challenges to credibility by students and colleagues were often experienced by many of the research participants. Rosa, an architecture faculty member, was physically reprimanded by a colleague when she attempted to question his authority. Sara and Susan found that their credibility was often challenged by colleagues who assumed that they were "catty" and jealous women. The social interactions with colleagues and students served as a form of regulatory power that defined and limited the performances of the women faculty members. For when they veered from the expected gender roles, regulatory power in the form of challenges to their credibility and negative reactions from colleagues limited the agency of the women to choose other gender roles. It is important to note, however, that this study also illustrated the importance of external influences in interpreting gender roles within the college. For example, Susan, like Arlene, used her experience in the airline trade unions as a point of comparison with her college environment and as a source of strategies she could use to succeed in her department. The participants' previous experiences and their perceptions of faculty work served as points of reference that helped them interpret gender roles in the context of the college.

Third, adhering to the gender roles and norms goes beyond simply performing a role that is external to identity. To continue performing her gender in relationship to culturally defined gender roles, Arlene actively negotiated her identity with her performances. Using both characteristics of femininity and masculinity, Arlene created a hybrid performance that created a positive classroom environment and an identity that helped her negotiate the hypermasculine culture of the classroom and department. This hybrid performance, also practiced by many of the study participants, was an intentional act, yet the constant repetition, as predicted in performativity theory, recreated her gender identity to include those masculine qualities. To use a Goffman (1959) term, Arlene's front stage performances blurred with her backstage performance; her intentionally constructed performances became a part of her identity. In addition, the unintentional adoption of these masculine qualities legitimated the gender roles regardless of the fact that they were initially incongruent to Arlene's expectation of faculty work and her gender identity. The construction of gender roles that adopt culturally and contextually defined identities has the potential to hide and naturalize inequitable practices.

Contribution and Implications

This study makes several contributions to research on gender roles and women faculty members. The first contribution of this study is the identification of power. Several studies have examined identity issues among women and minority faculty members, concluding that they often face internal identity conflicts as they attempt to negotiate the hegemonic culture with their "minority" race and gender status (Johnsrud & Sadao, 1998; Turner et al., 1999). However, these studies are limited in their identification of more intangible power structures that continue to reinforce traditional gender roles. By focusing on how individual faculty members perform gender, rather then conceptualizing gender as a fixed and marked (or embodied) identity, new forms of power that are contextually specific and that function internally are made evident. For example, the ways in which regulatory power changes in each context and in each culture (i.e., department versus classroom cultures) are made evident using a performativity conceptualization of identity.

The second contribution made by this line of research lies in its capacity to uncover the importance of the impact of gender roles on individual identity. Individuals do not just perform gender roles, such as performing in a maternal and caretaking manner as suggested in the research. Rather, women faculty members, by virtue of the existence of these gender roles, adopt, negotiate, and often construct new gender identities. This finding has implications for current research on work and family balance, on the matriculation of women and minority-group members into faculty work, and on how women and minority faculty members experience the academic culture. By providing alternative explanations of how gender roles create identity conflicts, we may better understand how and why women faculty members continue to experience conflicts with academic culture and why work and family conflicts remain a prevalent issue in higher education institutions. In addition, the adoption of gender roles was found to hide potential inequities. The participants conformed to and thus accepted oftentimes discriminatory gender roles by constructing new hybrid identities. Understanding how gender roles become normalized has the potential to alter examinations of inequitable organizational practices via organizational informants.

Third, this study conceptualizes gender roles as performances that express the social norms within an organization. This new conceptualization of gender roles helps deconstruct how gender identity is altered by culturally specific gender roles. Performativity helps make evident the relationship between identity and gender roles, regulatory power, and the ways in which gender roles are made legitimate in an organizational setting. Exposing the ways in which gender roles are reproduced in gender performances has implications for postsecondary institutions, and acknowledging that women faculty members continuously perform many traditional gender roles has implications for the ways in which faculty work is distributed. If women faculty members are expected to continue to perform the role of maternal and emotional worker, they are relegated into more service-oriented work that distracts from their primary roles as teachers. Although causal linkages are not possible, one of the reasons that we continue to see an underrepresentation of women at the full-professor rank may be the presence of these traditional gender roles. Institutions of higher education need to examine and deconstruct faculty work and the possibility of work being aligned with gender and gender roles.

The implications of this study are most evident in the specific discourses and practices that diffuse throughout the institution to define gender roles and norms. For example, in social interactions with colleagues and students, women community college faculty members may be placed in traditional women's roles and may often face discriminatory practices. Institutions need to consider the impact of those social interactions as well as how they can address biases that lead to these interactions. What are the implications for job satisfaction, the retention of women faculty members, and their productivity? Similarly, why do colleagues and students continue this behavior, and how does the institution tolerate these actions and biases? Finally, gender performances and the construction of new identities hide and naturalize inequitable practices in higher education. For many decades, institutions and scholars of higher education have documented inequitable practices (i.e., sexual harassment, salary inequities, etc.) in an attempt to create more equitable educational institutions. Yet, inequities along the lines of gender perpetuate.

Institutions of higher education and scholars need to look beyond specific practices to understand how these inequities are perpetuated by the very people who experience the discrimination. This is not to suggest that we should "blame the victim," but, rather, that community colleges need to consider and deconstruct how they perpetuate strict notions of gender through discourses and social practices and how these gender roles become an inextricable part of academe and the identities of faculty members.

Appendix
Research Participants and Themes

              Gender Socialization
              Experiences External          Organizational Cultural
                 to the College                  Socialization

Arlene   Arlene's experiences on        Arlene was expected to play
           construction sites led         the typical woman's
           to the adoption of a           secretarial role in the
           hybrid gender performance      context of the department.
           that combines the              She experienced challenges
           qualities of femininity        to her credibility by
           and masculinity. Her           students.
           success on the
           construction sites was
           determined by her ability
           to perform femininity in
           an all-male sphere.

Mary     Mary's experiences in the      Mary expected to continue the
           food industry, a physical      same masculine roles in
           and challenging                the college kitchen. Her
           profession that demands        behavior was reinforced by
           toughness, led to a            two male colleagues who
           masculine performance.         mentored her.
           She believes that success
           is determined by a need to
           be tough and strong and
           that women must conform to
           the male norm. Success in
           the food industry is
           primarily an outcome of
           her willingness to conform
           to the masculine culture
           of the food industry.

Rosa     Rosa experienced a gender-     Rosa experienced blatant
           inequitable architecture       discrimination and
           culture. She was advised to    challenges to her
           not have children, and she     credibility by male faculty
           experienced gender and race    and students. Gender and
           discrimination at a national   race were used to subvert
           conference. She decided        her activism and
           that her femininity is         assertiveness in changing
           an integral part of her        the architecture program
           identity and made a            and the department. She also
           conscious decision to          experienced isolation, both
           perform gender in a            physically and symbolically,
           feminine manner.               as a woman in a male-
                                          dominated department.

Susan    Susan's experience in a        Susan was expected to perform
           highly masculine trade led     in typical feminine roles,
           to a hybrid performance        such as providing the
           that combines both             "emotional work;" and her
           masculine and feminine         dress became delineated
           qualities. She acted           along gender lines. Women
           in submissive (a               were expected to dress
           stereotypically feminine       professionally, and if
           trait) and masculine ways,     they chose to dress more
           using crass language and       casually, they jeopardized
           masculine mannerisms.          the respect in which they
                                          were held.

Sara     Sara experienced strong        Sara felt expected to maintain
           influences from family         a feminine appearance. Her
           gender socialization. She      lack of experience in other
           constructed a hybrid           work cultures led her to
           gender that combined           view many gendered practices
           assertiveness-she is           as "normal." She practiced
           known as the dictator-         impression management to
           with a demeanor and            prevent being perceived as
           physical appearance that       a jealous woman.
           is feminine.

Diane    Diane's experiences in         Diane felt expected to perform
           previous instructor            the "glue work" of the
           positions led to an            department. She viewed
           understanding of the           gender inequities as a
           importance of dress and        subcultural (departmental)
           the power of male              issue. Student infatuations
           students. She emphasized       resulted in altering her
           her focus on appearance.       gendered performance.

                 Construction and Negotiation
                        of Identity

Arlene   Arlene negotiated her identity by using
           symbols to represent her femininity while
           acting masculine. She developed two
           separate gender identities-her
           performance on the job site and her
           identity as a woman. Her constructed
           work persona eventually became a part
           of her gender identity.

Mary     Mary readily adopted masculine behaviors.
           She negotiated her sexuality contrary to
           the cultural norm. Masculinity became a
           part of Mary's identity.

Rosa     Rosa negotiated the masculine norms by
           resisting the traditional role of women
           and embracing her femininity by making
           it an important part of her teaching style.
           She constructed a hybrid performance that
           she used to establish credibility among
           students and colleagues. Rosa did not
           find that her serious and distant persona
           conflicted with her gender identity.

Susan    Susan did not actively negotiate her identity,
           but involuntarily developed a work
           persona that used the techniques she
           learned in the trades. Her constructed
           identity occurred earlier in her experiences
           in the trades.

Sara     Sara did not actively negotiate identity; she
           found that her identity was congruent with
           cultural expectations. She acknowledged a
           hybrid performance that was shaped by
           reactions both in and out of the workplace.

Diane    Diane constructed two gender identities that
           existed separately. She separated her
           gender identity from her gender
           performances and refused to acknowledge
           that she may act masculine.

References

Acker, J. (1990). Hierarchies, jobs, bodies: A theory of gendered organizations. Gender & Society, 4, 139-158.

Acker, S., & Feuerverger, G. (1996). Doing good and feeling bad: The work of women university teachers. Cambridge Journal of Education, 26, 401-422.

Aisenberg, N., & Harrington, M. (1988). Women of academe: Outsiders in the sacred grove. Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts Press.

Alvesson, M., & Due Billing, Y. (1997). Understanding gender and organisation. London: Sage.

Amey, M., & Twombly, S. (1992). Re-visioning leadership in community colleges. Review of Higher Education, 15, 125-150.

Armenti, C. (2004). May babies and posttenure babies: Maternal decisions of women professors. Review of Higher Education, 27, 211-231.

Bailyn, L. (1993). Breaking the mold: Women, men, and time in the new corporate world. New York: Free Press.

Bailyn, L. (2003). Academic careers and gender equity: Lessons learned from MIT. Gender, Work, and Organization, 10(2), 137-153.

Bellas, M. L. (1997). Disciplinary differences in faculty salaries: Does gender bias play a role? Journal of Higher Education, 68, 299-321.

Benschop, Y., & Brouns, M. (2003). Crumbling ivory towers: Academic organizing and its gender effects. Gender, Work, and Organization, 10, 194-212.

Bird, S., Litt, J., & Wang, Y. (2004). Creating status of women reports: Institutional housekeeping as "women's work." NWSA Journal, 16, 194-206.

Blackwell, J. E. (1996). Faculty issues: The impact on minorities. In C. Turner, M. Garcia, A. Nora, & L. I. Rendon (Eds.), Racial and ethnic diversity in higher education (pp. 315-326). Needham Heights, MA: Simon & Schuster Custom Publishing.

Boice, R. (1993). New faculty involvement for women and minorities. Research in Higher Education, 34, 291-333.

Bronstein, P., Black, L., Pfenning, J. L., & White, A. (1986). Getting academic jobs. American Psychologist, 41, 318-322.

Bronstein, P., Black, L., Pfenning, J. L., & White, A. (1987). Stepping onto the academic career ladder: How are women doing? In B. A. Gutek & L. Larwood. (Eds.), Women's career development (pp. 110-128). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Bronstein, P., & Farnsworth, L. (1998). Gender differences in faculty experiences of interpersonal climate and processes for advancement. Research in Higher Education, 39, 557-585.

Butler, J. (1990). Gender trouble: Feminism and the subversion of identity. New York, NY: Routledge.

Butler, J. (2004). Undoing gender. New York: Routledge.

Carspecken, P. F. (1996). Critical ethnography in educational research. New York: Routledge.

Chliwniak, L. (1997). Higher education leadership: Analyzing the gender gap (ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report, Vol. 25, No. 4). Washington, D.C.: The George Washington University, Graduate School of Education and Human Development.

Clark, B. R. (1972). The organizational saga in higher education. Administrative Science Quarterly, 17, 178-184.

Dallimore, E. J. (2003). Memorable messages as discursive formations: The gendered socialization of new university faculty. Women's Studies in Communication, 26, 214-265.

Dey, E. L., Korn, J., & Sax, L. J. (1996). Betrayed by the academy: The sexual harassment of women college faculty. Journal of Higher Education, 67, 149-173.

Elliott, M. (2003). Work and family role strain among university employees. Journal of Family and Economic Issues, 24(2), 157-187.

Ely, R. (1994). The effects of organizational demographics and social identity on relationships among professional women. Administrative Science Quarterly, 39, 203-238.

Ely, R. J. (1995). The power in demography: Women's social constructions of gender identity at work. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 589-634.

Ely, R. J., & Meyerson, D. E. (2000). Theories of gender in organizations: A new approach to organizational analysis and change (CGO working paper, No. 8). Boston, MA: Center for Gender in Organizations, Simmons Graduate School of Management.

Eveline, J. (2004). Ivory basement leadership: Power and invisibility in the changing university. Crawley, Western Australia: University of Western Australia Press.

Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.

Halford, S., & Leonard, P. (2001). Gender, power and organizations. New York: Palgrave.

Johnsrud, L. K., & Sadao, K. C. (1998). The common experience of "Otherness": Ethnic and racial minority faculty. Review of Higher Education, 21, 315-342.

Kanter, R. M. (1977). Men and women of the corporation. New York: Basic Books.

Kaye, M. (1995). Organizational myths and storytelling as communication management. Journal of Australian and New Zealand Academy of Management, 1, 1-13.

Knights, D., & Richards. W. (2003). Sex discrimination in UK academia. Gender, Work and Organization, 10, 213-238.

Martin, P. Y. (1996). Gendering and evaluating dynamics: Men, masculinities, and managements. In D. Collinson & J. Hearn (Eds.), Men as managers, managers as men: Critical perspectives on men, masculinities, and managements (pp. 186-209). London: Sage Publications.

Martin, R Y. (2003). "Said and done" versus "saying and doing": Gendering practices, practicing gender at work. Gender & Society, 17, 343-366.

Merriam, S. B. (1988) Case study research in education: A qualitative approach. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, Inc.

Olsson, S. (2002). Gendered heroes: Male and female self-representations of executive identity. Women in Management Review, 17, 142-150.

Pini, B. (2005). The third sex: Women leaders in Australian agriculture. Gender, Work, and Organization, 12, 73-88.

Rapoport, R., Bailyn, L., Kolb, D., Fletcher, J., Friedman, D., Eaton. S., et al. (1996). Rethinking life and work: Toward a better future. Report to the Ford Foundation based on a collaborative research project with three corporations. New York: Ford Foundation.

Reinharz, S. (1992). Feminist methods in social research. New York: Oxford University Press.

Riessman, C. (1993). Narrative analysis. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

Riger, S., Stokes, J., Raja, S., & Sullivan, M. (1997). Measuring perceptions of the work environment for female faculty. Review of Higher Education, 21, 63-78.

Rosser, S. (2002). Institutional barriers for women scientists and engineers: What four years of survey data of National Science Foundation POWRE awardees reveal. In J. DiGeorgio-Lutz (Ed.), Women in higher education: Empowering change (pp. 145-160). Westpost, CT: Praeger.

Sandler, B. R., & Shoop, R. J. (1997). Sexual harassment on campus: A guide for administrators, faculty, and students. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Spradley, J. (1979). The ethnographic interview. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Stein, W. (1994). The survival of American Indian faculty. Thought and Action: The National Education Association Higher Education Journal, 10, 101-114.

Tedrow, B., & Rhoades, R. A. (1999). A qualitative study of women's experiences in community college leadership positions. Community College Review, 27(3), 1-18.

Tierney, W. G., & Bensimon, E. M. (1996). Promotion and tenure: Community and socialization in academe. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

Turner, C. S. V. (2002). Women of color in academe: Living with multiple marginality. Journal of Higher Education, 73, 74-93.

Turner, C. S. V., Myers, S. L., & Creswell, J. W. (1999). Exploring underrepresentation: The case of faculty of color in the Midwest. Journal of Higher Education, 70, 27-59.

Van Maanen, J. (1988). Tales of the field: On writing ethnography. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Winkler, J. (2000). Faculty reappointment, tenure, and promotion: Barriers for women. Professional Geographer, 52, 737-750.

Wolf-Wendel, L. & Ward, K. (2003). Future prospects for women faculty: Negotiating work and family. In B. Ropers-Huilman (Ed.), Gendered futures in higher education: Critical perspectives for change (pp. 111-134). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

Jaime Lester

Old Dominion University 

Notes

(1.) In a study of agricultural female leaders, Pini (2005) found that these women perform a "third sex"--one that encompasses both masculine and feminine characteristics. The female managers amplified normative traits of femininity, which include being communicative, encouraging relationship building, and being people-oriented. They also had to maintain the proper masculine traits associated with agriculture--being objective, desexualized, and rational, all in addition to being unencumbered by household duties.

(2.) The structure of a play is intentional. Acts in a play assume a temporality; the second act follows the first, and so on. Many of the stories do have linearity. Often, experiences external to the work environment occur before the participants enter faculty work. Other external experiences occur while working as a faculty member, particularly for those faculty members who have strong external ties, such as consulting work. Also, a play is conducted on a stage in front of an audience. Many actors are involved in the crucial socializing scenes that serve as a true and metaphoric audience policing the gender performances. Finally, a play has both a front stage and a backstage. The front stage is where the performance is conducted in front of the audience, whereas the backstage is behind the curtain where performances are practiced and prepared. It is in the realm of the backstage that performances are reflected on, intentionally constructed, and negotiated with identity.

Jaime Lester is an assistant professor in the Darden College of Education at Old Dominion University, Norfolk, Virginia.

Table 1
Study Participants

               Department and Field            Race

Arlene   Construction technologies/welding   African
                                               American
Mary     Culinary arts/breakfast cookery     Caucasian
Rosa     Construction technologies/          Latina
           architecture
Susan    Language arts/English               Caucasian
Sara     Language arts/honors English        Caucasian
Diane    Language arts/English as a second   Latina
           language and theater arts

                                Number of
         Marital    Number of    Years at
         Status      Children    College

Arlene   Divorced       1           10
Mary     Single         0           14
Rosa     Married        3           15
Susan    Married        0            5
Sara     Married        0            4
Diane    Married        0           16