View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Negotiating Co-Existing Subjectivities: The New Maternal Self in the Academy

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Negotiating Co-Existing Subjectivities: The New Maternal Self in the Academy
Language: English
Authors: Gilbert, E., Denson, N. (ORCID 0000-0001-5543-0487), Weidemann, G.
Source: Gender and Education. 2022 34(7):869-885.
Availability: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 530 Walnut Street Suite 850, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Tel: 215-625-8900; Fax: 215-207-0050; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 17
Publication Date: 2022
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Education Level: Higher Education
Postsecondary Education
Descriptors: College Faculty, Mothers, Personal Autonomy, Ideology, Foreign Countries, Feminism, Teacher Attitudes, Expectation, Neoliberalism, School Culture
Geographic Terms: Australia
DOI: 10.1080/09540253.2022.2094347
ISSN: 0954-0253
1360-0516
Abstract: The challenge of mothering while pursuing an academic career is the most significant obstacle to women's success. However, there is a lack of research examining how being a woman who intensively mothers co-exist with her autonomous subjectivity as an academic. In this qualitative study, academic mothers adhere both to an intensive mothering ideology and the ideal worker construct reified in neo-liberalised academic culture. We argue that these women negotiate the co-existence of these subjectivities from within a 'new' maternal subjectivity. These academic women are not victims of the patriarchal norms of the academy or the ideological constraints of intensive mothering. Instead, they actively negotiate institutional and ideological constraints in a way that incorporates their autonomous subjectivity and their maternal subjectivity.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2023
Accession Number: EJ1366735
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwGiF3p4rSVWGdLv6lsyeIoCAAAA4jCB3wYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHRMIHOAgEAMIHIBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDIz6yUabRnwBMTf9FwIBEICBmonMYVaoRl7S4CrZzP8mfcdYykDypPhrOlu5KHzbnzYBdO-B5fjYUtGI1JvoSptXi9AFDTBhutenYG8U_Z1aOub_xRgtSiPaLuRETjb5QBBb01C-vccbo4cELcxb3F7fLUIJEbm-g6bQBsDmj1uBJZR9QuP3nQNzGlQOAwpFmVfoxPsVSfvQMaBAIYAUD9VUGZAhjvPfgAPNPW4=
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0158963008;gae01oct.22;2022Sep09.04:49;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0158963008-1">Negotiating co-existing subjectivities: the new maternal self in the academy </title> <p>The challenge of mothering while pursuing an academic career is the most significant obstacle to women's success. However, there is a lack of research examining how being a woman who intensively mothers co-exist with her autonomous subjectivity as an academic. In this qualitative study, academic mothers adhere both to an intensive mothering ideology and the ideal worker construct reified in neo-liberalised academic culture. We argue that these women negotiate the co-existence of these subjectivities from within a 'new' maternal subjectivity. These academic women are not victims of the patriarchal norms of the academy or the ideological constraints of intensive mothering. Instead, they actively negotiate institutional and ideological constraints in a way that incorporates their autonomous subjectivity and their maternal subjectivity.</p> <p>Keywords: Academia; mothering; maternal subjectivity; feminism</p> <hd id="AN0158963008-2">Introduction</hd> <p>The challenge of mothering while pursuing an academic career is the most significant obstacle to women's success (Maxwell, Connolly, and Ni Laoire [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref1">41</reflink>]). There are gender inequities unique to mothers (Poggio [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref2">49</reflink>]), and universities reproduce dehumanising relations between 'mother' and 'academic' subjectivities (Amsler and Motta [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref3">3</reflink>]). Mothers face structural, institutional, socio-cultural and symbolic barriers that render them unable or unwilling (Rockinson-Szapkiw, Spaulding, and Lunde [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref4">55</reflink>]) to adhere to the masculine norm of the 'ideal' worker (Hunter and Leahey [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref5">25</reflink>]) and work expectations (Gaio Santos and Cabral-Cardoso [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref6">18</reflink>]) typical of neo-liberalised university. The reification of the ideal worker, who is free from competing responsibilities, is one pervasive form of gender bias in the academy (Acker [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref7">1</reflink>]). While many women adhere to the ideal worker construct, and experience the academy as progressive, this changes significantly if they have children and face the 'maternal wall' (Jensen [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref8">28</reflink>]). Women experience academic career penalties specific to their maternal subjectivity, including: disruptions to tenure (Armenti [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref9">4</reflink>]); workplace othering and abjectification (Huopalainen and Satama [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref10">26</reflink>]); diminished productivity (Hunter and Leahey [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref11">25</reflink>]); minimisation (Isgro and Castañeda [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref12">27</reflink>]); and sexual harassment (Poggio [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref13">49</reflink>]). These penalties are amplified by career interruptions (Maxwell, Connolly, and Ni Laoire [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref14">41</reflink>]) and for women who visibilise their maternal subjectivity (Lynch [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref15">37</reflink>]).</p> <p>Amsler and Motta ([<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref16">3</reflink>], 87) suggested mothers often 'suffer in silence the splitting, denial and self-discipline' that characterises their experiences of neo-liberal academia. Women in the academy may delay childbirth or have fewer children (Bardoel et al. [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref17">5</reflink>]), take little or no maternity leave (Marsh [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref18">39</reflink>]), or use day-care more often or sooner than preferred; illustrating clear tensions associated with being a mother in the academy. These tensions, between what Mills and Berg ([<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref19">43</reflink>], 348) refer to as 'disembodied vocationalism' and the 'embodied experiences of performative, gender hierarchies', are embedded in the academy (Ortiz-Ospina and Roser [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref20">47</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0158963008-3">The Australian academic context</hd> <p>The system of academic ranks and titles in Australia closely follows the British system, ranging from A to E: Associate Lecturer (Level A), Lecturer (Level B), Senior Lecturer (Level C), Associate Professor (Level D) and Professor (Level E) (Farrell [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref21">16</reflink>]). The most recent Inter-Institutional Gender Equity Report (Universities Australia [<reflink idref="bib68" id="ref22">68</reflink>]) shows relative overall gender equality (53% male, 47% female) but with significant gender disparity in senior positions, professorial appointments favouring men by 86%, and two-thirds of Australian university chancellors and vice chancellors are men (Devlin [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref23">14</reflink>]). Over the past decade, there was an increase in women's representation at senior levels, with the percentages of women employed at Level D, E, and above increasing from 30.6% to 40.7%, from 22.4% to 30.1% and from 22.8% to 30.3%, respectively (Universities Australia [<reflink idref="bib68" id="ref24">68</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib69" id="ref25">69</reflink>]). Despite this, gender disparities remain. Horizontal segregation persists with women heavily represented in nursing, teaching, and the arts and humanities. Meanwhile, we remain under-represented in science-related disciplines of medicine, engineering and information technology (Sassler et al. [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref26">57</reflink>]; Science in Australia Gender Equity [<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref27">59</reflink>]). While there are some gender equity success stories in Europe (Fritsch [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref28">17</reflink>]), gender inequities in Australia are similar to those in Poland (Górska et al. [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref29">19</reflink>]), Norway and India (Datta and Lund [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref30">12</reflink>]), Iceland (Rafnsdóttir and Heijstra [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref31">52</reflink>]), Finland and the United States (Ollilainen [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref32">46</reflink>]). Even when academic institutions have work-life balance policies in place, mothering results in gender bias (Smidt, Pétursdóttir, and Einarsdóttir [<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref33">61</reflink>]). Whilst the neo-liberal model places the onus of success on the individual, it ignores structural inequalities and disadvantages to already marginalised women, including culturally diverse women (Sang and Calvard [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref34">56</reflink>]) and women from working class backgrounds (Michell, Wilson, and Archer [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref35">42</reflink>]). The complex interplay between gender divisions in the home and the patriarchal structure of the Australian academy is key to the career penalties faced by mothers (Kerry and Angela [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref36">31</reflink>]). Although there are no currently available data quantifying how many mothers are in academic leadership positions, an Australian study revealed that women who were applying for promotion to senior positions either did not have children, had children that were no longer dependent, or their partners were primary caregiver (Pyke [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref37">51</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0158963008-4">Intensive mothering in the academy: an ideological and institutional perspective</hd> <p>Scholarship on mothering in academia has grown, highlighting the gendered workings of neoliberal power (Amsler and Motta [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref38">3</reflink>]), the problematics of a disembodied academic culture (Mills and Berg [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref39">43</reflink>]) and the normalising effect of 'cultural sexism' (Savigny [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref40">58</reflink>]). However, there is limited research adopting Sharon Hays' ([<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref41">21</reflink>]) ideology of 'intensive mothering' examining the tensions between mothering and academic work. Intensive mothering provides an ideological and institutional view of maternal subjectivity (Hays [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref42">21</reflink>]). Intensive mothering conceives of mothering as emotionally fulfilling, where a 'good' mother is self-sacrificing (Hays [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref43">21</reflink>]; Bell [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref44">6</reflink>]). This ideology has become the gold standard of mothering, essential to raising healthy and well-balanced individuals (Rizzo, Schiffrin, and Liss [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref45">54</reflink>]). However, academic mothers' negotiation of the competing demands of the ideal worker, and intensive mother is untenable and comes with emotional and personal costs (Maxwell, Connolly, and Ni Laoire [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref46">41</reflink>]). As Amsler and Motta ([<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref47">3</reflink>], 85) argue, 'mothers often face a choice of assimilation or denial in workplaces. The ideal-type mother cannot be an ideal-type neoliberal subject'. Despite this, research on how being a woman who intensively mothers co-exists with her subjectivity as an autonomous self who is engaged in academic work is lacking (for an exception, see Swanson and Johnston [<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref48">65</reflink>]).</p> <p>Feminist scholarship postulates that prior to becoming a mother, women's subjectivity is 'singular' (Bueskens [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref49">10</reflink>]). Women are seen as subjects, and are treated by others as the centre of their own agency. However, upon becoming a mother, women can experience an erasure of self and autonomy (Stone [<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref50">63</reflink>]), a long-lasting altering of subjectivity (Hollway [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref51">24</reflink>]) or a shattering of the old self (Bueskens [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref52">10</reflink>]), which occurs alongside the production of a <emph>new</emph> maternal self. Lupton ([<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref53">36</reflink>]) showed that first time mothers are torn between their 'old selves' and this new maternal self. While women strive to achieve the ideal of the 'independent mother', this ideal is diametrically opposed to the 'good' or 'intensive mother'. More recently, Bueskens ([<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref54">10</reflink>], 269) identified the 'revolving mother', where women actualise two selves individuated in time and space, who lead 'parallel lives within one life'.</p> <hd id="AN0158963008-5">Autonomous and maternal subjectivities: A psychological perspective</hd> <p>For psychoanalytic feminists, the co-existence of women's maternal and autonomous subjectivities involves separating women's subjectivity from her child – with this subjectivity recognised as separate by others (Stone [<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref55">63</reflink>]). A critique of the modern conception of the subject – specifically the idea that to become an autonomous self, one must separate from and leave behind their early relations to the maternal body; a psychical matricide in Kristevian terms (Kristeva [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref56">34</reflink>]). Whilst separation applies equally across genders, it is particularly problematic in the attainment of autonomous selfhood for girls, who upon becoming mothers, re-inhabit and re-immerse in maternal body relations. Since these are the precise maternal body relations they are required to break with for the fulfilment of an autonomous self, women's maternal re-immersion precludes them from attaining the status of an autonomous self (Stone [<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref57">63</reflink>]). Psychoanalytic feminists have since liberated women who are mothers from a maternal 'object' position lacking in autonomous subjectivity (Winnicott [<reflink idref="bib69" id="ref58">69</reflink>]) to a maternal 'subject' position (see Chodorow [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref59">11</reflink>]; de Marneffe [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref60">13</reflink>]; Hollway [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref61">23</reflink>]). Moving beyond the idea of the child as subject and mother as merely the object nurturing her child's subjectivity-to-be (Stone [<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref62">63</reflink>]). Indeed, as Hollway ([<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref63">23</reflink>], 8) rightly argues, 'women who are mothers are not only mothers', and if we view mothers simply through the lens of their child's needs, we position them as 'entirely the objects of their children's developmental needs', erasing their autonomous subjectivity. Instead, 'the mother has begun to emerge as a real person, a flesh and blood subject with an independent locus of need and desire' (Kraemer [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref64">33</reflink>], 766).</p> <hd id="AN0158963008-6">The present study</hd> <p>Despite both intensive mothering and the psychological framing of maternal subjectivity being well established, it has been argued that there has hitherto been a 'spilt' approach in feminist theorisations of mothering (O'Brien Hallstein [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref65">45</reflink>]). In <emph>Conceiving Intensive Mothering,</emph> 'feminism hasn't fully theorised intensive mothering and women's current spilt subjectivity between the contemporary ideal mother subject position and a new empowered feminist mothering subject position'(O'Brien Hallstein [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref66">45</reflink>], 98). This spilt approach stems from the theoretical divide between the ideological and institutional view of maternal subjectivity, and the psychological view of maternal subjectivity. When maternal subjectivity is conceived of in ideological and institutional terms alone, socio-cultural discourses and the institutional constraints of patriarchy are seen to (re)produce an ideology that induces women to strive for maternal perfection. However, such an approach negates the importance of the psychological dimension of mothering. Yet, when maternal subjectivity is conceived of in purely psychoanalytic terms, the material effects of both intensive mothering and the institution of patriarchy are minimised (Jeremiah [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref67">29</reflink>]). We argue that research in the area of mothering in academia would benefit from an account in which ideological and institutional constraints are working <emph>together</emph> with the psycho-relational dynamics produced through maternal subjectivity to shape women's experiences in the academy. We suggest that Alison Stone's ([<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref68">63</reflink>]) maternal subjectivity, as different to but a variation of autonomous female subjectivity, is instructive here. According to Stone, women take up a 'new' subjectivity by their re-situation as mothers and 'generate meanings and acquire agency from their place within maternal body relations'. This new subjectivity is <emph>continuous</emph> with the maternal body, and is key to the project of seeing mothers as agentic and occupying an empowered feminist mothering subjectivity.</p> <p>We adopt a qualitative research design, using focus groups, with women who are mothers and academics, to address the following research questions: (i) How do women negotiate the co-existence of their subjectivities as mothers and academics and (ii) what are the implications of this negotiation for these women?</p> <hd id="AN0158963008-7">Method</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0158963008-8">Feminist ethics</hd> <p>We adopt a post-structural feminist approach to ethics and the research process (Preissle and Han [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref69">50</reflink>]). This approach challenges the ontological, epistemological and axiological assumptions of positivism which sees that there is one 'true' and apprehend-able reality, with dualism and objectivism meaning that the researcher's values and lived experience are negated from research process (Lincoln and Guba [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref70">35</reflink>]). As women academics researching other women academics, we are implicated in this research. As researchers and authors, we each have brought to bear our own subjectivities to the research process. For Author 1 (Gilbert), this research was cathartic. Returning to work after an extended period of career interruption due to the births of her three children meant that Gilbert had recently lived the experience, and suffered the effects, of a patriarchal institutional system that invisibilises parenting and marginalises mothering. Whilst years of engaging in feminist research meant that Gilbert knew 'gender mattered', this research showed her that she was not alone. For Author 2 (Denson), an Asian-American-Australian woman who is childless by choice, and whose research focuses on equity for underrepresented minority groups and marginalised populations, this research provoked reflections on the intersections of gender and culture, and evoked Carolyn Ellis' idea of 'collaborative witnessing' by listening and working together with care and compassion as she bore witness to (m)others and herself (Ellis and Rawicki [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref71">15</reflink>]). For Author 3 (Weidemann), having lived through the physical care of three younger children, she now attends to the emotional care of her young adult children, and experiences the tensions with the lived reality of needing to 'put children before academic work'. For all three authors, examining mothering in academia is important because, to take from Preissle and Han ([<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref72">50</reflink>], 3), pursuing this topic is 'a good thing to do'. Following Budgeon (Budgeon [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref73">9</reflink>]), we position women's experientially based knowledges as central to understanding and theorising about the gendered structure of everyday, and we have drawn upon our 'authentic insider accounts' (Yoo [<reflink idref="bib70" id="ref74">70</reflink>]) to inform the research questions, method, and data analysis stages of this research.</p> <hd id="AN0158963008-9">Procedure</hd> <p>This project was conducted during 2019 and 2020. The 2019 phase of the research explored academic mothers' experiences in the academy, whilst the 2020 phase explored academic fathers' experiences in the academy. Here, we take a gender-specific approach and report on the 2019 data collected with academic mothers. After ethical approval (H13078), the women were recruited by snowball, convenience and purposive sampling via email. Prior to participating, the women filled out a short demographic questionnaire. Recruitment continued until a diverse and inclusive sample of women across disciplines, academic levels and employment type (sessional, contractual or ongoing) was obtained. Participants were reimbursed with a $40 gift card.</p> <p>Six focus groups were conducted, four were face-to-face while two were via remote conferencing (Zoom). The focus groups ranged in size from three to seven participants. The imbalance in focus group size was a result of groups being conducted across different campuses, getting multiple participants from disciplinary groupings together and participant attrition. This imbalance impacted the focus groups, with the smaller groups leaving more time for in-depth conversation, while larger groups ran over time or provoked more pithy responses. Focus groups lasted between 90 and 120 min.</p> <p>The focus groups were informal, with minimal intervention of the facilitator. A semi-structured schedule guided the focus groups conversations, with questions about balancing parenting and academic work, gender equity in the workplace, formal and informal supports and self-care. Focus group audio data was recorded using Otter.ai and checked for accuracy. Once transcripts were finalised, identifiers were removed and pseudonyms were assigned. The moderator (author one) was of a similar background to the participants – a strategy to minimise moderator bias (Smithson [<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref75">62</reflink>]), with the same moderator across all focus groups. Authors two and three were observers and note-takers across all focus groups.</p> <hd id="AN0158963008-10">Participants</hd> <p>Participants included twenty-seven academic mothers, aged between thirty to fifty-four. The women's children ranged in age from one month to twenty-four-years-old, and in number from one to three. Despite attempts to recruit for demographic diversity, the majority self-identified as Anglo-Australian (<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref76">14</reflink>) or Anglo-Saxon (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref77">3</reflink>), while the remaining eight self-identified as Eurasian, Anglo-American, Malaysian Chinese, Irish-Australian, Indian, Chinese, Afro-Canadian-Australian and Brazilian. The majority of participants self-identified as heterosexual (<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref78">24</reflink>), two as bisexual or queer, while one participant did not disclose her sexuality. Twenty-four of the participants were in a couple relationship, two were divorced, while one was separated and single. Two participants were employed at Level A, nine at Level B, ten at Level C, two at level D and no Level E academics volunteered. Three participants were casual academics. The length of time employed at the University ranged from less than two years to between 10 and 20 years. Some were in research intensive positions, others were in teaching-focused positions, whilst most were in mix of teaching, research, and governance positions. The participants spanned a range of schools and departments: Social Science and Psychology (<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref79">6</reflink>), Science and Health (<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref80">10</reflink>), Culture and Society (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref81">3</reflink>), Nursing (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref82">1</reflink>), Education (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref83">1</reflink>) and Brain, Behaviour and Development (<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref84">4</reflink>). The relative homogeneity of our sample fails to account for the intersectional experiences of academic mothers from culturally and linguistically diverse (CALD) communities, LGBTQIA communities, single mothers, adoptive and non-biological mothers and mothers who care for children with a disability(ies). Additional research is needed to adequately attend to how maternal subjectivity in the academy intersects with other aspects of subjectivity.</p> <hd id="AN0158963008-11">Analysis</hd> <p>The focus groups generated interactive data, exploring the social production of accounts, or in other words, 'how people define, discuss, and context issues through social interaction' (Tonkiss [<reflink idref="bib66" id="ref85">66</reflink>], 194). We worked with pre-existing groups of women who were co-located and already knew each other, and pre-existing groups allowed us to 'tap into fragments of interactions that approximated "naturally occurring" data' (Kitzinger [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref86">32</reflink>], 105). This had the advantage of participants having shared experiences, resulting in a kind of public performance of sociality (Kamberelis and Dimitriadis [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref87">30</reflink>]). The analysis envisaged the focus groups as constructed collectively where the researcher(s) and participants jointly position themselves in the conversation as well as being constituted by it (Smithson [<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref88">62</reflink>]). Thus, we were less interested in the 'real' or 'true' views of the participants, and more concerned with the joint discourse about mothering in academia.</p> <p>We used Braun and Clarke's ([<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref89">8</reflink>]) inductive and semantic method of thematic analysis to identify patterns of meaning and the range of 'voices', with patterns identified through an iterative six-phase process and developed through a coding frame. In the first phase of analysis, we immersed ourselves with the data by repetitive and close reading of the transcripts. In the second we coded important and recurring data. This initial coding resulted in the production of 111 broad descriptive codes such as: 'Shifting from work to home /home to work'; 'Work/life balance: Sacrificing family time for work'; 'Strategies'; 'Boundaries'; 'Self-care last on to-do list'; and 'Mental logistics of mothering'. All relevant data was then extracted and collated under the codes. In the third phase of analysis, eight themes were developed, including: 'Visible and Invisible Mothering'; 'Relationships at work and home'; 'Self-care Practices'; 'Identities/Self'; 'Gender disparities at home and work'; 'Intensive Mothering'; 'Workplace Culture'; and 'Strategies for Coping and Negotiating'. To organise the data under themes, we merged and discarded collated codes. For example, the codes 'Shifting from work to home /home to work', 'Work/life balance: Sacrificing family time for work', 'Work-Strategies' were combined to produce the refined code 'Work-Life Strategies and Boundaries'. This refined code was then collated into an initial theme of 'Strategies and Negotiations for Coping', with similar refinements taking place across all codes. We also noted commonalities and differences within and across focus groups. For example, across all focus groups the women talked in depth about their Strategies for Coping and Negotiating', including using flexible work arrangements, setting boundaries at work and sacrificing the self and self-care. Yet, only four of the groups discussed the 'Visibile and Invisible Mothering' at work. At the same time, depending on the dynamics and familiarity between participants, groups talked more about 'Relationships at work and home' – with many reflecting on a lack of partner support or collegial support in the workplace. What was clear across all focus groups was the tension between the competing roles of being a mother and being an academic. Phase four involved re-examining themes to determine their accuracy. The final phase of write up, involved particular attention to the 'collective voice' of the focus groups. We assessed such issues as: Was there a dominant voice from each focus group?; What were the normative practices, experiences or discourses that the participants described?</p> <hd id="AN0158963008-12">Results</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0158963008-13">Autonomous subjectivity: the expectations of academic excellence</hd> <p>Most women reported that the academy embodied the marketisation of university culture with academics 'constantly asked to do more with less time' (Amelia) and where 'the job's never done' (Kathleen). Doing more with less involved engaging in 'administrative and menial stuff' and contributing to the 'invisible work' of organisational citizenship; tasks that are 'never, ever calculated in our workloads' (Rachel). Yet, administrative and invisible citizenship tasks were not simply gendered, but positioned as 'mothering work'. Women reported carrying out 'mothering stuff at work' because, as Amelia pointed out, 'we're already doing it in every other bloody component of our lives (...) I end up feeling like I'm positioned as the mother of the workplace family'. The women seemed acutely aware of the broader gendered dynamics at play in the academy, with mothering work standing in contrast with how they position men in the academy. As the conversation with Cindy, Thandi, Charlotte and others highlights, 'male people' are not engaging in these tasks to the same extent. Instead, 'male people' are engaging in work that is 'benefiting them';</p> <p>Cindy: I had a bit of one of those moments last week too, can I share? where I just had put so much into everything over the last 18 months. Then there was people around me that are clearly not doing the same. I was like, nope ...</p> <p>Cindy: I'm not going to keep doing these late nights and this extra work when there's other people ...</p> <p>Thandi: Yeah.</p> <p>Cindy: Male people, around me that aren't doing it. I know what they're doing and it's not – it's benefiting them. So why am I not doing something that's benefiting me at night.</p> <p>Administrative and invisible citizenship tasks were positioned as time away from research, with Citra explaining that 'my job is research, but not much of my time is actually spent on research', and Rachel stating that 'you just have to work harder'. 'Working harder' meant securing external funding, publishing, and supervising students, with Katie stating that whilst 'I love the variety of roles that we are required to do (...) you are expected to then also be very good at each of those roles'. For Citra, 'being the best' was simply the 'brutal truth' of academia. As her extract below shows, a failure to be the best could result in one being rendered 'useless to the university' and being 'tossed out':</p> <p>If you've got a research load, it is that pressure to excel, and be the best, it's not just going to work and doing your job and going home, but you've just got to be the best in everything because if you don't bring in money then you're essentially useless to the university and then you get tossed out.</p> <p>A collective voice across the focus groups indorsed excelling in academia meant working outside business hours, or overworking, with most women adhering to this demand. Some women reported beginning work early in the morning, working in the evenings or on weekends or during annual leave. The below captures this demand for overwork. In Australia, application deadlines for competitive funding coincide with the Christmas holidays, meaning that women with children or other caring responsibilities are required to sacrifice family time,</p> <p>Pamela: So last Christmas, Christmas holidays, family goes away, I'm on the computer- "You go to the beach, I'm doing my grant [laughs]". Not for the whole time, but basically, you can't excel in research if you don't work outside of work hours.</p> <p>Multiple speakers: I agree. Absolutely.</p> <p>At the same time, Thandi and others talked about how working outside business hours was not only expected, but that 'being a machine' is central to the performance of the idealised worker reified in academia. This machine is not gendered, does not have any parenting responsibilities, and is essentially disembodied: Thandi: You're still expected to be a man, that's the fundamental to the question ...</p> <p>Cindy: Yeah, you are.</p> <p>Charlotte: I do sometimes think that.</p> <p>Thandi: you are still expected to function like a man, children, mothering, partnering all that, it doesn't exist.</p> <p>Thandi: You are a machine.</p> <p>Fiona: Yes.</p> <p>Thandi: Come to work, act like a machine, don't do all that stuff that makes you a human; please don't. Then get the outputs that you need to get, and then continue as we say.</p> <hd id="AN0158963008-14">Erasing the autonomous self: maternal subjectivity in the academy</hd> <p>Across the focus groups, the women described experiencing implicit and overt prejudice towards their mothering. They reported that being a mother relegated them to 'the slow lane' because 'the academy doesn't value it' (Rachel). Mothering is simply 'not a part of the conversation' in academia. Across the women's conversations, they recognised they were no longer the autonomous subject they were prior to having a child. They were positioned by others as a maternal object, and 'micromanaged' in a way that reduced autonomy. For many this had profound implications for their sense of self. Catherine explained her experience where she highlights the shift from being an expert to being seen purely as an object; 'a uterus with legs': 'Oh, you're a mother now. You're just useless, despite your 15/20 years of three university degrees and this paper, that paper, this expertise. Oh, you're just a uterus with legs. We great treated like that'.</p> <p>The women described being excluded from opportunities because they are mothers, as Rachel said, 'they think she's not going to be able to do that role because of her circumstances'. Kelly explained that this exclusion often occurs insidiously, stating that 'they don't do it to your face, but I guess you don't get invited to certain meetings sometimes, or they don't ask you to do something'. Others reported that opportunities 'just faded away and didn't come back' (Rachel), with such discrimination 'invisible enough to go under the carpet for anybody else to have felt' (Kimberly). Women talked about cases of more overt discrimination. For example, Rachel explained how revealing her pregnancy resulted in a conversation about the forfeiture of a potential leadership role which was positioned as an act benevolence;</p> <p>I had someone like call me up and say, "oh hi Rachel, I know you've applied for this job um ... but I hear that you're pregnant, so, what do you want me to do about your application?" I just wanted to give you the option of like withdrawing your application.</p> <p>Other women described being subject to scepticism surrounding their maternity leave, with leave positioned as a 'break', 'holiday' or 'long service leave' amongst colleagues. As Rachel and Pamela discuss below, this kind of positioning is minimising and fails to account for the hardships women experience;</p> <p>Rachel: The other thing that really gets me about the flexibility is the attitude that, you know, maternity leave is like taking long service leave</p> <p>Pamela: A long traumatic holiday [laughs]</p> <p>Rachel: Oh, "did you have a nice break?" It's like," no, I had major abdominal surgery and I have not had a night's sleep for the last 10 months.</p> <p>The experience of discrimination led some women to 'hide' their maternal subjectivity. For example, Katie explained that 'to be honest, I've hidden a lot if it'. She went on to describe how keeping mothering out of sight was common practice;</p> <p>You know what someone said to me once? Don't tell them you're at home, like you need that time for looking after your kids or getting them off to school or doing whatever. Tell them you're at a meeting.</p> <hd id="AN0158963008-15">Intensive mothering and a new maternal subjectivity</hd> <p>Participants positioned mothering as a 'second job', that 'obviously my kids come first', 'that relationship with them (children) I think is the most important for me' (Citra) and that 'raising decent humans is a really important thing to do' (Lily). However, most reported that their mothering was shaped by the ideology of intensive mothering. Fiona mentioned, 'these articles keep coming up on Facebook about make sure that you don't miss all those years with your baby. That's constantly in my head'. At the same time, women are expected to carry out this second job with patience and kindness, as Cindy pointed out, there's 'pressure to be here' and to be that 'nice nurturing mum' and 'don't be angry, get down on their level and be kind'.</p> <p>For women with young children, responsibilities centred around care-work of bathing, preparing meals, doing the housework, assisting with homework, play and story-time and dropping off and picking up children from child care or school. Some women talked about the mental health impact of intensive mothering mentioning that 'what's difficult about motherhood is you have to sit with a lot of uncertainty on a very regular basis. And it's uncomfortable. It's not at all pleasant' (Amelia). Others talked about the anxiety, depression and sadness that can be a part of mothering in the early stages of a child's life.</p> <p>For women whose children were more independent, responsibilities shifted from providing physical care towards emotional care. As Alice mentioned, her care-work is 'really different these days, not all the hands-on care'. Similarly, Rebecca said that 'it's helping out with the homework and/or listening to the stories of the challenges of the day'.</p> <p>Whilst the majority reported feeling constrained by the demands of intensive mothering, a few actively sought to resist the ideology. For Nancy, resisting intensive mothering was 'a moment where the lightbulb went on' when she 'stopped fretting about the negatives or stopped catastrophising things. Similarly, Catherine explained that 'children don't thrive on perfect parenting. They thrive on good enough parenting'.</p> <hd id="AN0158963008-16">Negotiating academic work and mothering: co-existing subjectivities</hd> <p>When describing experiences of negotiating academic work and mothering, the women described the coexistence of their autonomous and maternal subjectivities. Here mothering and academia were not seen in a dualist way. Instead, both subjectivities intersected to shape women's daily practices at home and in academia, with a blurring of boundaries between work and home. As they said, 'It's like work and life for me are not separate domains. Like they are totally integrated, and they are constantly bleeding into one another' (Amelia). Another explained, 'when I get home and they're home, I'm there but I'm not there because I'm back on the computer. I'm working again' (Sophie). In Catherine's account below, this blurring of boundaries and the co-existence of the autonomous academic and maternal subjectivities is hard work. Yet, it is ironically seen as essential to the experience of 'having it all':</p> <p>I went to my third I think international conference with a breast pump and an esky because she [daughter] was at home, and she was sick as a dog and I left her with my Mum luckily. I just went, I have to go because I have to present the statistics from my PhD and I remember having a moment of, okay, this is called having it all.</p> <p>For others, the coexistence of their autonomous academic and maternal subjectivities – resulted in 'intersections of your professional and family life' (Amelia), which were essential to survival in the academy and as central to maintaining autonomy upon maternity. Here, the women were compelled by the ideology of intensive mothering to be a 'good' mother – but equally compelled to be an 'ideal' worker. This situation was unsurprisingly fraught with conflict, and had negative effects for selfhood, leaving some to feel 'I'm useless, I'm worthless, I'm stupid' (Kimberly). As Citra said 'it's more my identity I still struggle with (...) Every day I'm wondering, can I do this?' Others talked about the difficulty with 'keeping it all together' and 'not going mad'. Occupying both the autonomous and maternal-self left many feeling guilty or 'horrible that you're not prioritising your kids because you have just so much coming through' (Kathleen). This guilt was associated with 'ruining' one's children, with Thandi saying, 'Why did I have kids- I'm only ruining them?'</p> <hd id="AN0158963008-17">Discussion</hd> <p>Academic work is central to the autonomous subjectivity of the women in this research. The women strove for excellence in a demanding neo-liberalised culture where academic labour is measured, and success evaluated, by normative disciplinary technologies founded in patriarchy (see Phipps and Young [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref90">48</reflink>]). Consistent with other research (Black and Garvis [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref91">7</reflink>]), academic mothers report the pressure of a 'performance culture' (Harris, Myers, and Ravenswood [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref92">20</reflink>], 708) in which the commodification of academic knowledge is prioritised (Black and Garvis [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref93">7</reflink>]; Harris, Myers, and Ravenswood [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref94">20</reflink>]). Women's work was focused on administration and invisible citizenship tasks that took time away from research. These tasks were seen as gendered academic housework, that men were less likely to engage in. However, these tasks were not simply gendered. They were seen as 'mothering work': work that is delineated both by gender and one's status as a carer. Whilst there are few studies that identify academic housework as 'mother's work' (for an exception, see Ramsay and Letherby [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref95">53</reflink>]), women's unequal engagement in academic housework or practices of care work vis-à-vis men within the academy has previously been reported (Heijstra, Steinthorsdóttir, and Einarsdóttir [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref96">22</reflink>]). Such activities are devalued (Alemán [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref97">2</reflink>]), while simultaneously requiring individualised sacrifice or occupying women's non-labour time (Amsler and Motta [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref98">3</reflink>]).</p> <p>The women made it clear that being valued in the academy meant functioning as a machine, or performing the role of the masculinised ideal worker. This is difficult for women with caring responsibilities. Indeed, the women had significant child-care responsibilities and were, deeply invested in intensive mothering. Despite this, they worked hard to be an ideal worker, and to maintain their autonomous selves. This meant working overtime, whilst on leave, and outside business hours, with most feeling they had little choice. Maxwell, Connolly, and Ni Laoire ([<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref99">41</reflink>]) found similar results, with women academics reporting an obligation to work whilst on leave, despite being structurally and emotionally difficult. For Amsler and Motta ([<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref100">3</reflink>]) working additional hours is characteristic of the neoliberal operation of power, where 'productive time' exists in the immediate present without any sense of impinging demands. To have value in the academy requires a willingness to transgress the boundaries between working and non-working time. Women's co-opting and commodification of non-work time into work time is an actively constructed self-disciplinary practice, a viable option for achieving 'worthy' recognition. Many women reported an erasure to their autonomous subjectivity since becoming a mother. In most instances, these women were perceived by others in the academy as simply maternal objects, with their mothering met with prejudice. This resulted in feelings of discrimination and injustice, and exclusion was normalised and invisibilised. Whilst universities have been on the forefront of implementing gender equity policies (Marchant and Wallace [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref101">38</reflink>]), there is research that points to the problematics for mothers of the patriarchal norms inscribed in culture and institutional practices (for examples, see Maxwell, Connolly, and Ni Laoire [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref102">41</reflink>]; Strachan [<reflink idref="bib64" id="ref103">64</reflink>]). Research has shown that academic mothers are overlooked for promotions, miss out on meetings (Seher and Iverson [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref104">60</reflink>]), are seen as inconsiderate or expecting special treatment (Amsler and Motta [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref105">3</reflink>]). Women are blamed for the complications their maternity leave presents, or are relegated to 'institutional sidelines' and have to 'make up' for their absence (Maxwell, Connolly, and Ni Laoire [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref106">41</reflink>]). Discursively constructed gendered norms stemming from the institution of patriarchy have material effects for academic mothers. The (re)inscription of structural disadvantage leaves mothers powerless and renders them as outsiders (Phipps and Young [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref107">48</reflink>]). Indeed, one of our key findings was that the status of academic mothers as autonomous subjects is erased upon becoming a mother, with women redefined as <emph>objects.</emph> An object status ontologically denies women who mother participation in the modern conception of the autonomous self; a denial that theoretically precludes mothers (equal) participation in the academy.</p> <p>Maternal subjectivities drew on the ideological tenets of intensive mothering, with women reportedly working as hard in the home as they do in academia. Mothering profoundly changed their subjectivity, with their psycho-relational bond with their child(ren) a significant feature of their maternal subjectivity. Mothering was experienced as highly rewarding, but women also felt anxious, depressed and lonely, consistent with other research (Swanson and Johnston [<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref108">65</reflink>]). That academic mothers adhere both to intensive mothering and the ideal worker shares similarities with Bueskens' ([<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref109">10</reflink>]) notion of the new sexual contract. Bueskens argues that the merging of two institutionally and ideological bifurcated roles causes tension for women, as they attempt to be both 'individuals' and 'intensive mothers'; two dialectical modes of self. We found that attempting to be both idealised academics and intensive mothers led women in our study to feel conflict and guilt. However, the women negotiated the tension between these two modes of self by blurring the boundaries between academic and mothering work, with academic work carried out in the home sphere and mothering work synchronised and negotiated around academic work. Here the maternal and autonomous self are seen as necessarily co-existing, and the structural and ideological divide between the public and private is, by necessity, partially erased. Flexible working practices contribute to the blurring of boundaries between academic and mothering work, however, others have shown that academic mothers construct their work and motherhood differently to other working mothers (Swanson and Johnston [<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref110">65</reflink>]). Rather than position their public and private as separate, academic mothers integrate these domains, and their subject positions within them, as the solution to work-family tension, engaging in 'synchronisation' as a response to their competing demands (Morehead [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref111">44</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0158963008-18">Conclusion</hd> <p>To reflect back on Stone's ([<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref112">63</reflink>]) work on maternal subjectivity and what it can offer us, we suggest that the academic mothers are subjects of a 'new' kind. Their experiences and practices are shaped by their maternity and their re-situation as mothers. The women function from this new subject position – one that is not bifurcated as <emph>either</emph> an autonomous or maternal subject, but one that is continuous with the maternal body. This means that despite the experience of gender discrimination, women are actively negotiating the demands of the neo-liberal ideal worker and the ideology of intensive mothering. This positioning of a new maternal subject allows us to recognise that the conflict and guilt associated with the co-existence of subjectivities can be located in the patriarchal norms of the academy and the ideological constraints of intensive mothering. Yet, this positioning allows us to see these women as empowered and agentic – actively doing things to succeed both as mothers and academics, and these things are not comfortable or easy. Indeed, as many have argued (Swanson and Johnston [<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref113">65</reflink>]; Maxwell, Connolly, and Ni Laoire [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref114">41</reflink>]; Amsler and Motta [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref115">3</reflink>]), academic mothers desire to have their maternal subjectivity valued by the academy. However, a problem for academic mothers is that the universities overlook women's lived experiences, and maternal policies and practices are structured around the ideal worker construct (Acker [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref116">1</reflink>]). Consistent with our findings, Martin ([<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref117">40</reflink>]) points out that academic mothers' barriers to academic success are not about their lack of commitment to their careers and children, but rather, stem from a lack of institutional and cultural sensitivity around maternal subjectivity. As exemplified in this study, meaningful reform and the normalisation of mothering starts with changes in the perception of maternity by the academy.</p> <hd id="AN0158963008-19">Disclosure statement</hd> <p>No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).</p> <ref id="AN0158963008-20"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref7" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Acker, S. 2012. " Chairing and Caring: Gendered Dimensions of Leadership in Academe." Gender and Education 24 (4): 411 – 428. doi: 10.1080/09540253.2011.628927.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref97" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Alemán, A. 2014. " Managerialism as the "New" Discursive Masculinity in the University." Feminist Formations 26 (2): 107 – 134.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref3" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Amsler, S., and S. C. Motta. 2019. " The Marketised University and the Politics of Motherhood." Gender and Education 31 (1): 82 – 99. doi: 10.1080/09540253.2017.1296116.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref9" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Armenti, C. 2004. " May Babies and Post-tenure Babies: Maternal Decisions of Women Professors." The Review of Higher Education 27 (2): 211 – 231.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref17" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Bardoel, E. Anne, Robert Drago, Brian Cooper, and Carol Colbeck. 2011. " Bias Avoidance: Cross-cultural Differences in the US and Australian Academies." Gender, Work & Organization 18 : e157 – e179.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref44" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Bell, S. E. 2004. " Intensive Performances of Mothering: A Sociological Perspective." Qualitative Research 4 (1): 45 – 75. doi: 10.1177/1468794104041107.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref91" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Black, A. L., and S. Garvis. 2018. Lived Experiences of Women in Academia: Metaphors, Manifestos and Memoir. London : Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref89" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Braun, V., and V. Clarke. 2006. " Using Thematic Analysis in Psychology." Qualitative Research in Psychology 3 (2): 77 – 101. doi: 10.1191/1478088706qp063oa.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref73" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Budgeon, S. 2021. " Making Feminist Claims in the Post-truth era: The Authority of Personal Experience." Feminist Theory 22 (2): 248 – 267.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bueskens, P. 2018. Modern Motherhood and Women's Dual Identities: Rewriting the Sexual Contract. London : Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Chodorow, N. J. 1978. The Reproduction of Mothering Psychoanalysis and the Sociology of Gender. Berkeley, CA : University of California Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Datta, Anindita, and Ragnhild Lund. 2018. " Mothering, Mentoring and Journeys Towards Inspiring Spaces." Emotion, Space and Society 26 : 64 – 71.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> de Marneffe, D. 2004. Maternal Desire: On Children, Love, and the Lnner Life. New York, NY : Little, Brown and Company.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Devlin, M. 2021. "No change at the top for university leaders as men outnumber women 3 to 1." The Conversation. Accessed 10 October 2021.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ellis, C., and J. Rawicki. 2013. " Collaborative Witnessing of Survival During the Holocaust: An Exemplar of Relational Autoethnography." Qualitative Inquiry 19 (5): 366 – 380.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Farrell, K. J. 2009. The Use of the Title 'Professor': A Report of the Policies, Conventions and Practices among Australian Higher Education Providers. Center for the study of higher education. Melbourne: University of Melbourne.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fritsch, Nina-Sophie. 2015. " At the Leading Edge – Does Gender Still Matter? A Qualitative Study of Prevailing Obstacles and Successful Coping Strategies in Academia." Current Sociology 63 (4): 547 – 565. doi: 10.1177/0011392115576527.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gaio Santos, G., and C. Cabral-Cardoso. 2008. " Work-Family Culture in Academia: A Gendered View of Work-Family Conflict and Coping Strategies." Gender in Management: An International Journal 23 (6): 442 – 457. doi: 10.1108/17542410810897553.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Górska, Anna Maria, Karolina Kulicka, Zuzanna Staniszewska, and Dorota Dobija. 2021. " Deepening Inequalities: What did COVID-19 Reveal About the Gendered Nature of Academic Work? " Gender, Work & Organization 28 (4): 1546 – 1561.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Harris, C., B. Myers, and K. Ravenswood. 2019. " Academic Careers and Parenting: Identity, Performance and Surveillance." Studies in Higher Education 44 (4): 708 – 718. doi: 10.1080/03075079.2017.1396584.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hays, Sharon. 1996. The Cultural Contradictions of Motherhood. New Haven, CT : Yale University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Heijstra, Thamar Melanie, Finnborg Salome Steinthorsdóttir, and Thorgerdur Einarsdóttir. 2017. " Academic Career Making and the Double-edged Role of Academic Housework." Gender and Education 29 (6): 764 – 780. doi: 10.1080/09540253.2016.1171825.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hollway, W. 2001. " From Motherhood to Maternal Subjectivity." International Journal of Critical Psychology 2 : 13 – 38.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hollway, W. 2006. The Capacity to Care: Gender and Ethical Subjectivity. London : Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hunter, L. A., and E. Leahey. 2010. " Parenting and Research Productivity: New Evidence and Methods." Social Studies of Science 40 (3): 433 – 451. doi: 10.1177/0306312709358472.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Huopalainen, A. S., and S. T. Satama. 2019. " Mothers and Researchers in the Making: Negotiating 'New' Motherhood Within the 'New' Academia." Human Relations 72 (1): 98 – 121. doi: 10.1177/0018726718764571.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Isgro, K., and H. Castañeda. 2015. " Mothers in U.S. Academia: Insights from Lived Experiences." Women's Studies International Forum 53 : 174 – 181.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jensen, T. 2014. " Mothers and the Academy." Feminist Theory 15 (3): 345 – 351. doi: 10.1177/1464700114546452.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jeremiah, E. 2006. " Motherhood to Mothering and Beyond Maternity in Recent Feminist Thought." Journal of the Association for Research on Mothering 8 (1-2): 21 – 33.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kamberelis, G., and G. Dimitriadis. 2012. " Focus Groups: Contingent Articulations of Pedagogy, Politics, and Inquiry." In Collecting and Interpreting Qualitative Materials, edited by N. Denzin and Y. Lincoln, 309 – 343. LA : Sage.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kerry, Carrington, and Pratt Angela. 2003. " How far Have we Come? Gender Disparities in the Australian Higher Education System." Parliamentary Library (Australia) 31 : 1 – 19.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kitzinger, J. 1994. " The Methodology of Focus Groups: The Importance of Interaction Between Research Participants." Sociology of Health and Illness 16 (1): 103 – 121.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kraemer, S. B. 1996. " "Betwixt the Dark and the Daylight" of Maternal Subjectivity Meditations on the Threshold." Psychoanalytic Dialogues 6 (6): 765 – 791. doi: 10.1080/10481889609539152.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kristeva, J. 1989. Black sun: Depression and Melancholia. New York, NY : Columbia University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lincoln, Yvonna S., and Egon G. Guba. 2013. The Constructivist Credo. Walnut Creek : Taylor & Francis Group.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lupton, D. 2000. " 'A Love/Hate Relationship': the Ideals and Experiences of First- Time Mothers." Journal of Sociology 36 (1): 50 – 63. doi: 10.1177/144078330003600104.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lynch, K. D. 2008. " Gender Roles and the American Academe: A Case Study of Graduate Student Mothers." Gender and Education 20 (6): 585 – 605. doi: 10.1080/09540250802213099.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Marchant, T., and M. Wallace. 2013. " Sixteen Years of Change for Australian Female Academics: Progress or Segmentation? " Australian Universities' Review 55 (2): 60 – 71.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Marsh, Kristin. 2015. " Motherhood in US Academe: How the Presence of Women Disrupts the Ideal Worker Model in Colleges and Universities." Journal of the Motherhood Initiative for Research and Community Involvement 6 : 2.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Martin, B. 2016. " Beyond Blame: Challenging the Myths and Inequities That Compromise Academic Mothers' Success." Journal of the Motherhood Initiative for Research and Community Involvement 6 (2).</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Maxwell, N., L. Connolly, and C. Ni Laoire. 2018. " Informality, Emotion and Gendered Career Paths: The Hidden Toll of Maternity Leave on Female Academics and Researchers." Gender, Work & Organization 26 : 140 – 157. doi: 10.1111/gwao.12306.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Michell, Dee, Jacqueline Z Wilson, and Verity Archer. 2015. Bread and Roses: Voices of Australian Academics from the Working Class. Rotterdam: Springer.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mills, D., and M. L. Berg. 2010. " Gender, Disembodiment and Vocation: Exploring the Unmentionables of British Academic Life." Critique of Anthropology 30 (4): 331 – 353.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Morehead, A. 2001. " Synchronizing Time for Work and Family: Preliminary Insights from Qualitative Research with Mothers." Journal of Sociology 37 (4): 355 – 369.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> O'Brien Hallstein, L. 2006. " Conceiving Intensive Mothering." Journal of the Association for Research on Mothering 8 (1-2): 96 – 108.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ollilainen, Marjukka. 2019. " Academic Mothers as Ideal Workers in the USA and Finland." Equality, Diversity and Inclusion: An International Journal 38 (4): 417 – 429. doi: 10.1108/EDI-02-2018-0027.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ortiz-Ospina, E., and M. Roser. 2020. Economic inequality by gender. Published online at OurWorldInData.org. ' https://ourworldindata.org/economic-inequality-by-gender' [Online Resource].</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Phipps, A., and I. Young. 2015. " Neoliberalisation and 'Lad Cultures' in Higher Education." Sociology 49 (2): 305 – 322.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Poggio, B. 2018. " Gender Politics in Academia in the Neo-liberal Age." In Gender Reckonings, edited by J. Messerschmidt, W. Martin, Y. Messner, and R. Connell, 173 – 192. New York, NY : New York University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Preissle, J., and Y. Han. 2012. Handbook of Feminist Research: Theory and Praxis, edited by S. Nagy Hesse-Biber. Thousand Oaks, CA : SAGE Publications, Inc.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pyke, J. 2013. " Women, Choice and Promotion or Why Women are Still a Minority in the Professoriate." Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management 35 (4): 444 – 454. doi: 10.1080/1360080X.2013.812179.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rafnsdóttir, Gudbjörg Linda, and Thamar M. Heijstra. 2013. " Balancing Work–Family Life in Academia: The Power of Time." Gender, Work & Organization 20 (3): 283 – 296. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-0432.2011.00571.x.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ramsay, K., and G. Letherby. 2006. " The Experience of Academic NonMothers in the Gendered University." Gender, Work and Organization 13 (1): 25 – 44.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rizzo, K., H. Schiffrin, and M. Liss. 2013. " Insight Into the Parenthood Paradox: Mental Health Outcomes of Intensive Mothering." Journal of Child and Family Studies 22 (5): 614 – 620. doi: 10.1007/s10826-012-9615-z.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rockinson-Szapkiw, A. J., S. Spaulding, and R. Lunde. 2017. " Women in Distance Doctoral Programs: How They Negotiate Their Identities as Mothers, Professionals, and Academics in Order to Persist." International Journal of Doctoral Studies 12 : 049 – 072.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sang, Katherine J.C., and Thomas Calvard. 2019. " 'I'm a Migrant, but I'm the Right Sort of Migrant': Hegemonic Masculinity, Whiteness, and Intersectional Privilege and (dis)advantage in Migratory Academic Careers." Gender, Work & Organization 26 (10): 1506 – 1525. doi: 10.1111/gwao.12382.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sassler, Sharon, Jennifer Glass, Yael Levitte, and Katherine M. Michelmore. 2017. " The Missing Women in STEM? Assessing Gender Differentials in the Factors Associated with Transition to First Jobs." Social Science Research 63 : 192 – 208. doi: 10.1016/j.ssresearch.2016.09.014.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Savigny, H. 2014. " Women, Know Your Limits: Cultural Sexism in Academia." Gender and Education 26 (7): 794 – 809. doi: 10.1080/09540253.2014.970977.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Science in Australia Gender Equity. 2021. "Gender Equity in Higher Education." SAGE. Accessed 22 November 2021. https://<ulink href="http://www.sciencegenderequity.org.au/gender-equity-in-stem/">www.sciencegenderequity.org.au/gender-equity-in-stem/</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Seher, C., and S. V. Iverson. 2015. " From Dialogue to Action: Consciousness-raising with Academic Mothers." NASPA Journal About Women in Higher Education 8 (1): 17 – 28. doi: 10.1080/19407882.2014.987025.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Smidt, Thomas Brorsen, Gyða Margrét Pétursdóttir, and Þorgerður Einarsdóttir. 2017. " How do you Take Time? Work–Life Balance Policies Versus Neoliberal, Social and Cultural Incentive Mechanisms in Icelandic Higher Education." European Educational Research Journal 16 (2-3): 123 – 140. doi: 10.1177/1474904116673075.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Smithson, J. 2000. " Using and Analysing Focus Groups: Limitations and Possibilities." International Journal of Social Research Methodology 3 (2): 103 – 119. doi: 10.1080/136455700405172.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Stone, A. 2012. Feminism, Psychoanalysis, and Maternal Subjectivity. New York, NY : Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Strachan, G. 2016. " Women, Careers and Universities: Where to from Here? " Advocate: Journal of the National Tertiary Education Union 23 (3): 36.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Swanson, D., and D. Johnston. 2003. " Mothering in the Ivy Tower: Interviews with Academic Mothers." Journal of the Association for Research on Mothering 5 (2): 63 – 75.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tonkiss, Fran. 2004. " Analysing Discourse." In Researching Society and Culture, edited by C. Seale, 245 – 260. London : Sage.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Universities Australia. 2014. Selected Inter-Institutional Gender Equity Statistics - Australia wide - 2011.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Universities Australia. 2019. Selected Inter-Institutional Gender Equity Statistics. https://<ulink href="http://www.universitiesaustralia.edu.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/2019-UA-Selected-Inter-Institutional-Gender-Equity-Statistics.pdf">www.universitiesaustralia.edu.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/2019-UA-Selected-Inter-Institutional-Gender-Equity-Statistics.pdf</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Winnicott, D. 1960. " The Theory of the Parent-Infant Relationship." In The Maturational Processes and the Facilitating Environment, edited by M. M. Khan. 37 – 55. New York, NY : International Universities Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Yoo, J. 2020. " An Autoethnography of Mothering in the Academy." The Qualitative Report 25 (8): 173 – 184.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By E. Gilbert; N. Denson and G. Weidemann</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author</p> <p></p> <p>Emilee Gilbert is a feminist sociologist, and Associate Professor in the School of Psychology, Western Sydney University. Her research interests are gender equity, feminism and health. Emilee is an elected member of the International Academy of Sex Research, and is the leader of the Equity and Diversity Research group at Western.</p> <p>Nida Denson is an Associate Professor at Western Sydney University (Australia) in the School of Social Sciences. Her research interests focus on faculty, and the various supports and barriers to academic life, including faculty work-life balance, and how the experience may differ across gender, racial/ethnic background and household status.</p> <p>Gabrielle Weidemann is an Associate Professor in the School of Psychology at Western Sydney University (Australia). Her research interests include associative learning processes in both humans and non-human animals, language acquisition and academic parenting experiences.</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib49" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib55" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref15"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref18"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref19"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib47" firstref="ref20"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref21"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib68" firstref="ref22"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref23"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib69" firstref="ref25"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib57" firstref="ref26"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib59" firstref="ref27"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref28"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref29"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref30"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib52" firstref="ref31"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib46" firstref="ref32"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib61" firstref="ref33"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib56" firstref="ref34"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref35"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref36"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib51" firstref="ref37"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib58" firstref="ref40"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref41"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib54" firstref="ref45"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib65" firstref="ref48"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref49"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib63" firstref="ref50"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref51"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref53"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl37" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref56"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl38" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref59"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl39" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref60"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl40" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref61"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl41" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref64"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl42" bibid="bib45" firstref="ref65"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl43" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref67"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl44" bibid="bib50" firstref="ref69"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl45" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref70"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl46" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref71"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl47" bibid="bib70" firstref="ref74"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl48" bibid="bib62" firstref="ref75"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl49" bibid="bib66" firstref="ref85"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl50" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref86"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl51" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref87"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl52" bibid="bib48" firstref="ref90"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl53" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref92"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl54" bibid="bib53" firstref="ref95"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl55" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref96"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl56" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref101"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl57" bibid="bib64" firstref="ref103"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl58" bibid="bib60" firstref="ref104"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl59" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref111"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl60" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref117"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1366735
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Negotiating Co-Existing Subjectivities: The New Maternal Self in the Academy
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Gilbert%2C+E%2E%22">Gilbert, E.</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Denson%2C+N%2E%22">Denson, N.</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5543-0487">0000-0001-5543-0487</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Weidemann%2C+G%2E%22">Weidemann, G.</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Gender+and+Education%22"><i>Gender and Education</i></searchLink>. 2022 34(7):869-885.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 530 Walnut Street Suite 850, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Tel: 215-625-8900; Fax: 215-207-0050; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 17
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2022
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Audience
  Label: Education Level
  Group: Audnce
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Higher+Education%22">Higher Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Postsecondary+Education%22">Postsecondary Education</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22College+Faculty%22">College Faculty</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Mothers%22">Mothers</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Personal+Autonomy%22">Personal Autonomy</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Ideology%22">Ideology</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Foreign+Countries%22">Foreign Countries</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Feminism%22">Feminism</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Teacher+Attitudes%22">Teacher Attitudes</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Expectation%22">Expectation</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Neoliberalism%22">Neoliberalism</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22School+Culture%22">School Culture</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Geographic Terms
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Australia%22">Australia</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1080/09540253.2022.2094347
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 0954-0253<br />1360-0516
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: The challenge of mothering while pursuing an academic career is the most significant obstacle to women's success. However, there is a lack of research examining how being a woman who intensively mothers co-exist with her autonomous subjectivity as an academic. In this qualitative study, academic mothers adhere both to an intensive mothering ideology and the ideal worker construct reified in neo-liberalised academic culture. We argue that these women negotiate the co-existence of these subjectivities from within a 'new' maternal subjectivity. These academic women are not victims of the patriarchal norms of the academy or the ideological constraints of intensive mothering. Instead, they actively negotiate institutional and ideological constraints in a way that incorporates their autonomous subjectivity and their maternal subjectivity.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2023
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1366735
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1366735
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1080/09540253.2022.2094347
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 17
        StartPage: 869
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: College Faculty
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Mothers
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Personal Autonomy
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Ideology
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Foreign Countries
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Feminism
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Teacher Attitudes
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Expectation
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Neoliberalism
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: School Culture
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Australia
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Negotiating Co-Existing Subjectivities: The New Maternal Self in the Academy
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Gilbert, E.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Denson, N.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Weidemann, G.
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 01
              Type: published
              Y: 2022
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 0954-0253
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 1360-0516
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 34
            – Type: issue
              Value: 7
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Gender and Education
              Type: main
ResultId 1