Research in Higher Education

, Volume 53, Issue 7, pp 782–802 | Cite as

The Ideal Worker or the Ideal Father: Organizational Structures and Culture in the Gendered University

Article

Abstract

While literature has focused on the ways in which organizational structures exclude women from the workplace, this article suggests that the inverse is also true: organizational structures and culture prevent men from being involved in the home. Using theories of gendered organizations as a guide, this article draws on interviews with 70 faculty fathers at four research universities to explore the tension that many men feel navigating their responsibilities in the home while simultaneously aiming to fulfill the norms of the ideal worker, which holds that employees are always available to perform work and have few responsibilities in the home. Data suggest that institutions and those within them penalize men who appear too committed to their families. Some participants crafted identities for themselves that separated their roles as professor and father while others struggled to reconcile their two roles. In short, institutional structures and culture play a critical role in shaping faculty identity, both on and off-campus.

Keywords

Faculty Fatherhood Organizational culture Ideal worker Gender norms 

References

  1. Acker, J. (1990). Hierarchies, jobs, bodies: A theory of gendered organizations. Gender & Society, 4(2), 139–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bailyn, L. (2003). Academic careers and gender equity: Lessons learned from MIT. Gender, Work and Organization, 10(2), 137–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Brandth, B., & Kvande, E. (1998). Masculinity and child care: The reconstruction of fathering. The Sociological Review, 46(2), 293–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bygren, M., & Duvander, A. (2006). Parents’ workplace situation and fathers’ parental leave use. Journal of Marriage and Family, 68, 363–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Doherty, W. J., Kouneski, E. F., & Erickson, M. F. (1998). Responsible fathering: An overview and conceptual framework. Journal of Marriage and Family, 60(2), 277–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Elliott, M. (2003). Work and family role strain among university employees. Journal of Family and Economic Issues, 24(2), 157–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Elliott, M. (2008). Gender differences in the causes of work and family strain among academic faculty. Journal of Human Behavior in the Social Environment, 17(1/2), 157–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Ely, R. J., & Meyerson, D. E. (2000). Theories of gender in organizations: A new approach to organizational analysis and change. Research in Organizational Behaviour, 22, 103–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Emslie, C., & Hunt, K. (2009). ‘Live to work’ or ‘work to live’? A qualitative study of gender and work-life balance among men and women in mid-life. Gender, Work and Organization, 16(1), 151–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Finkel, S. K., Olswang, S. G., & She, N. (1994). The implications of childbirth on tenure and promotion for women faculty. The Review of Higher Education, 17(3), 259–270.Google Scholar
  11. Gerstel, N., & Gallagher, S. K. (2001). Men’s caregiving: Gender and the contingent character of care. Gender and Society, 15(2), 197–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. New York: Aldine de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  13. Haas, L., & Hwang, P. (1995). Company culture and men’s usage of family leave benefits in Sweden. Family Relations, 44(1), 28–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Haas, L., & Hwang, C. P. (2009). Is fatherhood becoming more visible at work? Trends in corporate support for fathers taking parental leave in Sweden. Fathering, 7(3), 303–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kossek, E. E., Lewis, S., & Hammer, L. B. (2009). Work-life initiatives and organizational change: Overcoming mixed messages to move from the margin to the mainstream. Human Relations, 63(3), 3–19.Google Scholar
  16. Kvale, S., & Brinkmann, S. (2009). InterViews: Learning the craft of qualitative research interviewing (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  17. Lamb, M. E., Pleck, J. H., Charnov, E. L., & Levine, J. A. (1985). Paternal behavior in humans. American Zoologist, 25, 883–894.Google Scholar
  18. Lammi-Taskula, J. (2008). Doing fatherhood: Understanding the gendered use of parental leave in Finland. Fathering, 6(2), 133–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Lee, Y., & Waite, L. J. (2005). Husbands’ and wives’ time spent on housework: A comparison of measures. Journal of Marriage and Family, 67, 328–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  21. Marsiglio, W., Amato, P., Day, R. D., & Lamb, M. E. (2000). Scholarship on fatherhood in the 1990s and beyond. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 62, 1173–1191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Mason, M. A., & Goulden, M. (2004). Do babies matter (Part II)? Closing the baby gap. Academe, 90(6), 10–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  24. Nakhaie, M. R. (2009). Professors, ideology and housework. Journal of Family and Economic Issues, 30, 399–411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. National Center for Education Statistics. (2005). 2004 National study of postsecondary faculty report on faculty and instructional staff. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.Google Scholar
  26. Park, S. M. (1996). Research, teaching, and service: Why shouldn’t women’s work count? Journal of Higher Education, 67(1), 46–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Pleck, J. H., & Masciadrelli, B. P. (2004). Paternal involvement by U.S. residential fathers: Levels, sources, and consequences. In M. E. Lamb (Ed.), The role of the father in child development (4th ed., pp. 222–271). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.Google Scholar
  28. Press, J. E., & Townsley, E. (1998). Wives’ and husbands’ housework reporting: Gender, class, and social desirability. Gender & Society, 12(2), 188–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Russell, G., & Hwang, C. P. (2004). The impact of workplace practices on father involvement. In M. E. Lamb (Ed.), The role of the father in child development (4th ed., pp. 476–503). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.Google Scholar
  30. Sallee, M. W. (2011, April). Academic fatherhood and disciplinary culture. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.Google Scholar
  31. Sax, L. J., Hagedorn, L. S., Arredondo, M., & Dicrisi, F. A. I. I. I. (2002). Faculty research productivity: Exploring the role of gender and family-related factors. Research in Higher Education, 43(4), 423–446.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Sayer, C. L., Bianchi, S. M., & Robinson, J. P. (2004). Are parents investing less in children? Trends in mothers’ and fathers’ time with children. American Journal of Sociology, 110(1), 1–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Smithson, J., & Stokoe, E. H. (2005). Discourses of work-life balance: Negotiating ‘genderblind’ terms in organizations. Gender, Work and Organization, 12(2), 147–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Stake, R. E. (1994). Case studies. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 236–247). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  35. Thompson, C. A., Beauvais, L. L., & Lyness, K. S. (1999). When work-family benefits are not enough: The influence of work-family culture on benefit utilization, organizational attachment, and work-family conflict. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 54, 392–415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Tierney, W. G., & Bensimon, E. M. (2000). (En)gender(ing) socialization. In J. Glazer-Raymo, B. K. Townsend, & B. Ropers-Huilman (Eds.), Women in higher education: A feminist perspective (2nd ed., pp. 309–325). Boston: Pearson Custom Publishing.Google Scholar
  37. U.S. Census Bureau. (2009). Married couple family groups, by family income, and labor force status of both spouses (Table FG2). Retrieved 2 Nov 2010, from http://www.census.gov/population/www/socdemo/hh-fam/cps2009.htm.
  38. West, C., & Zimmerman, D. H. (1987). Doing gender. Gender and Society, 1(2), 125–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Williams, J. (2000). Unbending gender: Why family and work conflict and what to do about it. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  40. Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University at BuffaloBuffaloUSA

Personalised recommendations