INDUSTRY & RESEARCH
Gender
equity
– her story
Constraints on acceptable
leadership models and
access to the more respected
professional realms are among
the enduring challenges
for women in academia.
Sharon Bell interviewed by Andrew Bracey
I
n its inaugural edition of August 1991, Campus Review ran the
following quote from then-assistant registrar for appointments
at USYD, Dr Pat Miller. “It’s easy to put a woman down – many
women are defined by the stage of their menstrual cycle, or lack
of one, their femininity or who they slept with to attain a position
of power.”
In the article, titled “Why women should take higher profile”,
Miller went on to say that she felt women were obliged to raise
community consciousness about discrimination issues.
25 years on, Campus Review speaks with one of Australia’s most
senior and respected gender equity research experts, Australian
National University’s professor Sharon Bell, about what she thinks
has changed in this space over the last quarter century.
Bell began her academic career as an anthropologist and
ethnographic filmmaker in the 1980s. She completed a PhD
before heading into leadership roles at various universities, most
recently at Charles Darwin University, where she was deputy vicechancellor for five years.
Here, she discusses the experiences that have affected her own
career, whether attitudes such as those Miller highlighted in 1991
have endured, and how power dynamics affect the ability to bring
about positive change.
12
campusreview.com.au
CR: Would you have agreed with Dr Miller’s quote back in 1991 and
have such societal attitudes become less mainstream or are they
still ingrained?
SB: If I think about my own career, there have been some defining
moments that do fit that view. Probably the first was in Year 10,
when I saw the careers adviser to talk about what subjects I should
choose for the higher school certificate. I was very keen to be a vet,
and the careers adviser said to me: “Oh no, you’re too small and
you’re not strong enough to be a vet.”
Obviously that meant that I began to look differently at what
sort of career options were open to me. That was probably the
point when a path, even if it was not consciously taken, led me
away from the sciences and into the humanities and creative arts.
I wouldn’t agree with Pat Miller’s entire quote. Times have
changed in terms of women’s agency and ability to affect change
and develop professional profiles that are efficacious.
So the thing for women, particularly in leadership roles,
is to recognise that all good leadership is contextual. You
have to understand the context, and you have to draw from
a repertoire of leadership strategies to be effective. It seems
the difference between women and men in leadership is that
women’s repertoire is much more constrained. It’s constrained
by a whole of range of deeply held beliefs about what leaders
look like, how they should behave, and forms of behaviour that
are acceptable or even celebrated in men, but discouraged
or unacceptable in women. You’re constantly negotiating this
space. It’s not easy for any women in leadership roles; certainly
it requires far more nuancing and far more self-reflection than it
does for most men.
Throughout my career, I have been labelled a ‘difficult woman’.
Difficult because I have not accepted the status quo? Difficult
because I have sought to speak truth to power? Difficult because
of my impatience with incompetent men who rise to senior roles?
Difficult because I have privileged collegial decision-making and
enabling cultures over compliance? Difficult because of those
prickly days when the political becomes personal? I’ve been found
to be simultaneously strident and too caring.
It’s true, however that women now are less defined by their
male colleagues and associates. Their academic lineage, in one
sense, doesn’t define who they are. But that lineage is important
in terms of who is sponsoring you. It’s not just who your mentors
are, it’s also whether there are people in the sector who are
actively supporting you in taking on roles of responsibility.
I find it interesting that every now and again certain narratives
emerge around women in leadership. It’s hard to imagine those
same narratives emerging in the same form around men. For
instance, we’ve seen much discussion recently around the ‘Queen
bee syndrome’. The women or the generation of women who’ve
been successful and gained leadership roles are perceived as
being protective of their own base and not being adequately
supportive of younger women coming through. At the same
time, we have a narrative that absolutely celebrates men who are
promoting diversity. For women to promote a gender agenda
in leadership roles is much harder than for men. You know
we have male Champions of Change, which is fantastic, but
the men involved in those initiatives are absolutely celebrated
and constantly applauded for what they’re doing. Women may
be seen to be showing self-interest or favouring a particular
proportion of the workforce.