campusreview.com.au
industry & research
Suiting the part
Research reveals school leaders’
wardrobes judged more than ever.
By Kate Prendergast
“Do you know what it’s like when a
younger man shows up wearing
the same cufflinks? You might as
well be invisible.”
So complains TV executive Jack Donaghy
in the sitcom 30 Rock. The joke here, of
course, is that heterosexual men’s fashion
choices are the opposite of a high stakes
game. Unlike the women on the show
and in real life, their bodies and sartorial
style aren’t typically subject to remorseless
scrutiny, competition and judgement.
An ongoing study by Monash University
and the University of Nottingham focusing
on female educational leaders shows the
story hasn’t changed as society apparently
becomes more liberated.
Gathering insights from 400 female
leaders across the world so far (from the
UK to Australia, to Bangladesh to Malta),
the survey finds that women continue to
suffer ongoing evaluation on every item
of corporate attire and accoutrement:
clothing, makeup, hair, accessories,
perfume, tattoos, piercings and so on.
As was the case with Australia’s first
female prime minister, Julia Gillard,
attention – media and otherwise – all too
often shifts from what a woman does as
an agent of authority and power, to “omg
WHAT is she wearing!?” That is, her choice
of shoes, or a flash of cleavage, or some
other insignificant wardrobe element.
In the survey, school leaders admitted
relying upon blazers as a power-dressing
mainstay, comparing them to a “suit
of armour”, or even a means to mask
femininity, which they fear may jeopardise
their authority in a masculinist space.
While a protection against sexism, it’s a
double bind, as it conceals their authentic
selves, disenfranchises their identities, and
makes them beholden to stereotypes that
should’ve been shucked off long ago.
The ‘female leader’ isn’t a homogenous
identity either, and the authors consider
other pressures faced by marginalised
and minority groups. In a book chapter
exploring preliminary findings, the authors
write that “the construction of appearance
that complies with being the ‘right’ kind of
woman – not too feminine, attractive, looks
good, and dresses the part – can become
a battleground for women who are ‘plus
size’ (though we ask, plus what?), women
of colour, women with disabilities, and
older women.
“To refuse these wardrobe expectations
and costs is a choice – perhaps located
in the individual biography or in another
collective identity – in tension with the
formal leadership position.”
The tug of war female leaders feel
between appeasing others’ expectations
and being true to themselves is frustrating,
exhausting and a professional distraction
they could do without.
The ‘others’ in this case are primarily
parents, the research found. Staff came
second, students third.
“While women are disciplined to focus
on their appearances, their energy and
effort are being funnelled into directions
that distract and deplete them, rather than
help them advance their work and careers,”
says Dr Amanda Heffernan from Monash
University’s Faculty of Education, the study’s
co-author.
“We can see this reflected in our survey
results, in the time that it takes to find
the right items of clothing: the significant
investment into ‘smart’ and ‘professional’
jackets; the time that it takes to achieve and
maintain the ‘right’ hairstyle; and the choice
one participant made in the mornings
between a long relaxing breakfast or
spending more time applying makeup.
“We also see it in the pain, discomfort
and restriction of movement described
by participants when referring to their
wardrobes. As one participant commented:
‘I am torn between wanting to look good
and be respected, but also angry that I have
to do this a certain way’.”
Here’s to an age where a female principal
can stress less about how parents are
judging her on her choice of scarf. And
when we can all agree that the colour of a
woman’s eyeshadow has little bearing on
the running of a school.
The study’s preliminary findings are
published in the book, Theorising Identity
and Subjectivity in Educational Leadership
Research. ■
19