View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Queering the Glass Ceiling: Alpha Females, Cyborgs, and the Non-Tenure Track in Science

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Queering the Glass Ceiling: Alpha Females, Cyborgs, and the Non-Tenure Track in Science
Language: English
Authors: Doerr, Katherine
Source: Gender and Education. 2023 35(6-7):537-551.
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: 15
Publication Date: 2023
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Education Level: Higher Education
Postsecondary Education
Descriptors: Nontenured Faculty, Females, Women Faculty, College Faculty, Teacher Researchers, Gender Differences, Teacher Characteristics, Feminism, Ethnography, Social Theories, Science Teachers, Gender Bias
DOI: 10.1080/09540253.2023.2231518
ISSN: 0954-0253
1360-0516
Abstract: This inquiry into the nature of feminist solidarity in the academic sciences is guided by the intra-activity of gendered bodies in teaching-intensive faculty positions. It uses diffractive methodology to examine how response-able research practice can account for enactment of social discourse through agential cuts. Over the course of a two-year ethnography in a university with high research activity, gender performativity in the contested space of feminized teaching and masculine science was analysed. This article aims to make visible how researcher subjectivities entangle with data collection. Results show how specific agential cuts -- alpha female, silencing, less-than-person, squashing passion, and staying to get tenure -- illuminate a unique diffractive pattern. The pattern troubles structural notions of feminist solidarity, as ethnographic participants marginalized by institutional hierarchies survive by queering it. Furthermore, the inquiry gestures towards a humble, local, and tentative contribution to post-human theorizing on 'queering the glass ceiling'.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2023
Accession Number: EJ1398338
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwEdVW-nbZZEHK21uHS3CezyAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDElJp8Ipo1Su92dChQIBEICBm1slNoCBBIwtPVdp38v400L5q1jYwa5KedWCvH2twkw7FhxnMgWQX9_Knp4WgW7hJjtUUuov-2SQl2kfAvauiHfOAN4lTyLzBbHd1OQFz9IvzZL6tLJLxc7pFCVV4KEGA_IfgZxXf26f6-dHFmUccLPBdARY3dVEokuyOu3QSKDarnEfzvD9ldkni8_YpUabvMslQVpiHkzOYNVU
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0171843408;gae01aug.23;2023Sep13.02:08;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0171843408-1">Queering the glass ceiling: alpha females, cyborgs, and the non-tenure track in science </title> <p>This inquiry into the nature of feminist solidarity in the academic sciences is guided by the intra-activity of gendered bodies in teaching-intensive faculty positions. It uses diffractive methodology to examine how response-able research practice can account for enactment of social discourse through agential cuts. Over the course of a two-year ethnography in a university with high research activity, gender performativity in the contested space of feminized teaching and masculine science was analysed. This article aims to make visible how researcher subjectivities entangle with data collection. Results show how specific agential cuts – alpha female, silencing, less-than-person, squashing passion, and staying to get tenure – illuminate a unique diffractive pattern. The pattern troubles structural notions of feminist solidarity, as ethnographic participants marginalized by institutional hierarchies survive by queering it. Furthermore, the inquiry gestures towards a humble, local, and tentative contribution to post-human theorizing on 'queering the glass ceiling'.</p> <p>Keywords: Ethnography; queer theory; post structural theory; higher education; embodiment</p> <p> <emph>Ring the bells that can still ring. Forget your perfect offering. There is a crack, a crack in everything. That's how the light gets in.</emph> Leonard Cohen, 'Anthem', 1992</p> <p> <emph>Associate Professor Stewie said that I just want to be the alpha female of the teaching faculty</emph>. Dana, teaching faculty, fall 2017</p> <p> <emph>I think things are slowly changing. If I stay I can probably get tenure.</emph> Kelly, teaching faculty, spring 2019</p> <hd id="AN0171843408-2">1. Introduction</hd> <p>This article examines gender performativity in the contested space of teaching, science, and academia, to make visible how researcher subjectivity is entangled with ethnographic data collection and analysis. Troubling binaries, such as (non)tenure track, (wo)man, and (sub/ob)jective, I explore my own performativity as always-already in intra-action with data (Barad [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref1">4</reflink>]). As such, this inquiry uses diffractive methodology as a response-able research practice (Strom et al. [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref2">29</reflink>]; Haraway [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref3">20</reflink>]), accounting for enactment of social discourse through agential cuts (Barad [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref4">5</reflink>]). Over the course of a two-year ethnography in a university science department in the United States, I observed and interviewed teaching faculty to understand how the masculine culture of science was reproduced through their everyday activities. In many ways, I was an insider; like my research interlocutors, I was over 30, white, and had degrees in Science. Unlike them, I never finished my PhD. Rather, I had dropped out, due to a reasons associated with gender. Now on my second try, I was a PhD student in Education, researching the job that I might have had, if I had stayed.</p> <p>I begin this article by considering how poststructural theory can be used to analyse the gendered experiences of science faculty. An account of the data collection, and a discussion of how diffractive methodology was leveraged, follows this. Then, a detailed empirical examination of researcher entanglement with data collection and analysis is examines how gendered bodies intra-act in university science teaching. I conclude the article by highlighting how agential cuts produce different ways of becoming, as women marginalized by the institutional structures survive by queering it. Agential cuts trouble the notion of solidarity as centred on women, opening up possibilities for a post-human feminism (Barad [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref5">5</reflink>]; Braidotti [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref6">8</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0171843408-3">2. Becoming-with the data through diffractive methodology</hd> <p>The social location of the teaching faculty in science is emblematic of a system of gender segregation in academia. The teaching machine, an 'irreducible margin in the center' is shaped by inherited power structures and acts as the 'aggregative apparatus of Euro-American university education, where weapons for the play of power/knowledge as <emph>puissance/connaissance</emph> are daily put together, bit by bit, according to a history rather different from our own' (Spivak [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref7">28</reflink>], 58–59). The teaching faculty's marginal centrality is full of contradictions. This science department was three-quarters male, but the majority of the teaching faculty were women. They are a second class of faculty, doing the essential work of teaching undergraduates with little expectation for recognition and respect from the institution (Doerr [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref8">14</reflink>]). Yet, undergraduate students cannot discern these tiers – it is the teaching faculty who deliver lectures, administer examinations, and issue grades. To them, the teaching faculty are 'Professor' (Doerr [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref9">12</reflink>]). Thus, gender segregation in this science department resulted in women clustered into work that is underappreciated and undercompensated, to the benefit of the institution.</p> <p>Judith Butler argues that, within theories of marginality, structural feminism's claims of being representative of women, and of the patriarchy as a universal, may itself be problematized ([<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref10">9</reflink>], 3). Gender is a set of relations, not an individual attribute. Understood as a performativity:</p> <p>gender ought not to be construed as a stable identity or locus of agency from which various acts follow; rather gender is an identity tenuously constituted in time, instituted in an exterior space through a stylized repetition of acts. (<reflink idref="bib140" id="ref11">140</reflink>)</p> <p>Spivak and Butler both depart from the premise that context determines possible subject positions. Thus, releasing 'woman' from a unitary category 'is to expand the possibilities of what it means to be a woman and in this sense to condition and enable an enhanced sense of agency' (Butler [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref12">10</reflink>], 16). Performativities which challenge normative conceptions of gender, such as female scientists and male teachers, may spur on social transformation of gender relations (Butler [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref13">11</reflink>]).</p> <p>Building on the idea that biological bodies are generated the way literature is generated, Donna Haraway ([<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref14">18</reflink>]) sees 'facticity' and 'the organic' as ideological – poems and organisms are siblings. They might be translated into a 'material-semiotic actor' that portrays the object of knowledge as an 'active, meaning-generating [...] apparatus of bodily production' (<reflink idref="bib595" id="ref15">595</reflink>). Speculative feminism, the analytic practice of attending to science's entanglement in performative relations, can offer different ways to trace how science becomes discursively and materially gendered. Becoming-with is 'cultivating responsibility', because there are 'high stakes in training the mind and imagination to go visiting, to venture off the beaten path to meet the unexpected' (Haraway [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref16">20</reflink>], 130). This imperative is a central motivation of diffractive methodology.</p> <p>Karen Barad ([<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref17">4</reflink>]) suggests that, in a materialist reworking of performativity, the 'primary ontological units are not things but phenomena [and] primary semantic units are not words but material-discursive practices' (<reflink idref="bib818" id="ref18">818</reflink>). Thus, phenomena are examined through agential cuts. These cuts are theoretically and materially informed separation of component parts, to give insight into how one part affects another. Agential cuts redefine reality in discursive terms to better understand the material effects, because 'to see, one must actively intervene' (Barad [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref19">5</reflink>], 51). Diffractive methodology is not reflexivity, or 'turning the mirror back onto oneself' (<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref20">57</reflink>). Diffraction is a way to examine how phenomena are produced through entangled practices, which are termed intra-actions.</p> <p>Within empirical research in science education, diffractive methodology has been used to examine previously analysed video and ethnographic data from a preschool, with the intention to 'engage with it to create something new or different' (Jobér, Günther-Hanssen, and Andersson [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref21">24</reflink>], 39). The metaphors 're-turning and re-thinking' helped to blur boundaries and highlight how gendering shapes conceptualizations of science (<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref22">37</reflink>). Another example conceptualizes diffraction as 'a mapping of interference' and draws the conclusion that the ethics in science education reproduces onto-epistemological traditions of 'Euro-Western' cultural and masculinist hegemony (Mahy and Wallace [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref23">25</reflink>]). This implies that writing about my empirical study is not something separate from my performativity as a researcher, but rather a product of embodied becoming-with the data (Haraway [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref24">20</reflink>]).</p> <p>Therefore, my intra-action with the data is ongoing, from before my study began, during fieldwork, now, and into the future. Doing diffractive inquiry 'requires us to insert ourselves in the material production of the texts' (Jackson and Mazzei [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref25">23</reflink>], 131). Embodying analysis, I (re)wrote accounts of the relationship between two ethnographic interlocutors, Dana and Kelly, from the perspective of their colleagues, all of whom also participated in the study. I was guided by the agential cuts that made their relationship complex and uncomfortable to me and a desire to analyse 'the nature of subjectivity [giving] first-person subjectivity a central role' (Zeiler [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref26">34</reflink>], 370). (Re)writing brought me back to my fieldnotes both in thought and action, and I assembled events and remarks into a new diffraction pattern. As such, agential cuts were affective – they sensitized me to what I had previously left unexamined. These cuts guided this inquiry as a writing process, through an interrogation of the cuts on my embodied practice which were produced as I intra-acted with the data (Barad [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref27">5</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0171843408-4">3. Steps toward queering the glass ceiling</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0171843408-5">3.1. Their-story: me and the Biggest University</hd> <p>In my adolescence in the 1990s, Biggest University was the place where I did not want to be, but where I always seemed to find myself. Along with other privileged white kids in our southern state, I often headed over to BiggestU for tennis camp, concerts, or just to use the library. Despite this, or maybe because of it, BiggestU was a place where I did not want to go to college. I wanted to get out of the South, go to a private school up North, one whose central campus did not display statues of Jefferson Davis and Robert E. Lee. Although I did that, majoring in science at a women's college in Massachusetts, I kept getting drawn back to BiggestU. During ravishingly hot summers back home, I took classes and found internships in the air-conditioned labs.</p> <p>What I learned in those labs was that science research was also social, and the gender dynamics between younger women and older men were asymmetric. Ravi, the graduate student responsible for teaching me basic procedures in research, called me his 'slave'. One afternoon, I wanted to leave the lab a little early to make it to yoga class. Ravi said I could go, but that was only because yoga would make me better at sex. My face grew warm. Was it my fault, because I wanted to leave and get some exercise? There were also actual sexual encounters with male postdocs and graduate students, in dark closets and late at night. Non-committal, practically anonymous – I was ambivalent. Was this supposed to be happening? I was too ashamed to ask one of the few women around.</p> <p>Then came Charles, the postdoc nearly a decade older than me, who fell quickly and intensely in love when we met at an academic science conference. I felt affection too, but was very surprised when he started talking about marriage. Again, I was confused and did not mention it to my friends. I was only 21 and had plans to pursue a PhD. Charles lived in Europe and was trying to get a job as a tenure-track professor. This was a complication that made my last year of college fraught with drama. I had the grades and research experience to be admitted to a top graduate programme. Staying with Charles would mean, most likely, being in a long-distance relationship. After I was admitted to Berkeley and other selective PhD programmes, I broke up with Charles over the phone. Then I cried.</p> <p>Back then, I did not realize how significantly these experiences shifted my feelings about who I was in science and on my future in it. I was aware of ideas about how I supposed to protect my body from men to preserve my dignity. But in science, I was always doing the opposite, working with materials toxic to my body. I was vulnerable to sexual exploitation when I was trying to figure out how much of myself to give to the science. I found myself on the wrong side of the line. These are memories of men pursuing me far beyond what turned out to be comfortable for me, both then and now in retrospect. But what resonates now is how these situations changed me. They disciplined me to see my embodied self as ancillary to the scientific enterprise but central to the sexual desire of many men I interacted with.</p> <p>When I got to Berkeley that fall, I was off-balance. I felt alone and unprotected. On the first day of classes the Advanced Subdiscipline instructor gave a test. It was hard and I felt that I had done poorly. That instructor, then an assistant professor, won the Nobel Prize about 20 years later. I went to a lab meeting run by another assistant professor who also recently won the Nobel Prize. I felt that I could not follow the discussion. I went to the section of undergraduate lab where I was supposed to work as a teaching assistant, and felt that I did not have any idea how to teach. I felt that I did not belong at Berkeley. So two weeks in, I went to the department office and told the department secretary I was leaving. Then I put my stuff back into my car and headed East.</p> <p>A few years later, I found myself teaching science in a high school. No one wins anything close to a Nobel Prize for doing this challenging and important work. I did that for ten years, along the way getting married and having two babies. It was a tough decision to pursue a PhD in Education. After my failure in science, would I belong? When I was deciding where to go for graduate school, this time around I did not take a risk and move to an unknown location for the best-ranked programme. Instead, I went home to the South, to BiggestU. BiggestU was good enough, and my parents were around to help look after my kids.</p> <p>My journey to become a PhD student in Education in my mid-thirties defies the modernist predictability of science. Often women's attrition from the sciences is explained by a leaky pipeline: '<emph>the</emph> metaphor in discussions of the recruitment and retention of girls and women in science' (Subramaniam [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref28">30</reflink>], 964). The pipeline leads from childhood to a career in a science laboratory, and leaks symbolize attrition over the course of time. I had certainly been in the pipeline, and was excited about my future as a scientist. Why did I leak? Not the subject matter, which I loved. Rather, the positivist paradigm did not fit the culture shaping me. Nearly every time I left my women's college, older men pursued me. There was an inside and an outside, with boundaries clearly delineated. However, although the real world does not have such clear boundaries (Haraway [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref29">18</reflink>]), the pipeline was bringing me to a place that no longer felt like a destination where I belonged. I could not envision how I would be a serious contender in academia, a culture structured by men.</p> <p>Spivak's ([<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref30">28</reflink>]) theorization of academia's 'impossible no' is apt for my story. As I navigated through higher education as a woman in science, I came to know myself not as a capable scientist, but as a gendered body who elicited attention as a sexual partner. Thus disempowered, when I was confronted with knowledge practices at Berkeley, I was marginalized. Yet neither the centre nor the margin is bounded: 'as the margin or "outside" enters an institution or teaching machine, what kind of teaching machine it enters will determine its contours' ([<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref31">28</reflink>], ix). The 'impossible no' is to refuse the margin as a pure, universal space, because even the marginalized experience privilege in the academy – they cannot <emph>not</emph> want the status offered in the teaching machine. When I returned to Biggest U to try again for a PhD, I began a journey of an 'impossible no'. I was researching gender in a department where my subject position woman had earlier marginalized me.</p> <hd id="AN0171843408-6">3.2. Welcome back, but not on the tenure track</hd> <p>I returned to BiggestU as a PhD student in Education, but often I found myself drifting up the university's central artery, teeming as always with undergrads who were forever 21. My direction was toward the Science Building. The smells and sounds in the labyrinthine corridors, the clinks from the laboratory glassware: I went back in time. Even the gender composition of the research faculty was the same: fewer than five women, and over twenty men. William, an assistant professor back then, had become Associate Dean for Undergraduate Education.</p> <p>The spring evening before I was to interview William for my research, I imagined myself facing him[<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref32">1</reflink>] in his large office. I would wear black pants and shirt with a high neck. I was separated from my partner at that point, but I decided that during this interview, I should wear my wedding ring. No other jewellery. Not much makeup. Hair in a bun. The interview was focused on gendered career pathways, and afterwards, William's rhetorical question and response richocheted around my head:</p> <p>You want a tenure-track job in Science? You've got like a year window, that's it, there's no going back. What I'm saying is, our current system is shut, one-hundred percent, and it doesn't matter if you went to work at DuPont for two years, or to teach in Lithuania. You do a PhD, you do a postdoc, you apply and even if people apply a second year, we are like: 'didn't this person apply last year and they didn't get a job? There must be something weird about them'. (Interview, spring 2019)</p> <p>William, a white man wearing a blue button-down shirt, tan pants and a patterned tie, had made a statement which echoed other research arguing the tenure-track in science has an extremely narrow gateway to membership with colour- and gender-blind logics (Blair-Loy and Cech [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref33">6</reflink>]). There is no space for anyone to deviate from the ideal worker norm and take time off for parental leave.</p> <p>William was speaking in general terms, but it felt personal, too. My departure from science was much larger than simply teaching in Lithuania for two years – I had been out of research for nearly two decades by then. If I ever tried to get back into that field, the perception would be that I was weird. In that way, I felt I could be in the tenure track, but just not in Science – I was now in science education research, a field that juxtaposes the feminized work of teaching with the masculine culture of science (Doerr [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref34">13</reflink>]).</p> <p>This juxtaposition was described by Jane, the Department's only female[<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref35">2</reflink>] full professor. Jane's research lab was on the first floor and when I was doing my ethnography, I often walked by her office. When Jane was in, she sat with her back to the open door, facing the window. A white woman, her long hair hung straight down her back as she worked on her computer. In an interview, she explained how an 'incredible work ethic' was necessary to be in her position:</p> <p>Not having children means that I can be so wrapped up in my job and my group. It occupies, you know, 140% of my time [...] If you're getting a lot of things done, you're winning a lot of grants, you're publishing tons, it's hard to denigrate that in any way. You know, not to toot my own horn, it is an exceeds-expectations kind of mentality. (Interview, summer 2019)</p> <p>Jane understands her success through the lens of academic science as a highly competitive field, suitable only for people with an intense work ethic and unlimited devotion to science (Blair-Loy and Cech [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref36">6</reflink>]). This culture, which has been traced by feminist science historians to a Christian clerical culture and its associated characteristics of 'self-sacrifice' and 'suffering', continue to shape science today (Subramaniam [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref37">30</reflink>], 961). Insofar as Jane's description of her work ethic is exaggerated – working '140%', publishing 'tons' – she also implies there is something natural about this culture by her repeated use of 'you know'. Those who are not in the 'know' are, perhaps, fair targets for being denigrated. They do not, however, include:</p> <p>these traditional men. There's no doubt that their wives were the primary household managers and the primary child-care givers. So these men never had to deal with any of these things. (Interview, summer 2019)</p> <p>Jane recognizes both that men are boosted by the system and that her position is due to working excessively. When I was a younger woman in this department, I sensed this was the social order I was entering. To foreclose on the possibility of parenthood to many young women, myself included, is to also to deny an aspect of their gender identity (Utoft [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref38">32</reflink>]; Gilbert, Denson, and Weidemann [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref39">16</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0171843408-7">3.3. The teaching track, a step back</hd> <p>I met Dana when I was the research assistant for a Natural Sciences College committee related to undergraduate education. She expressed deep institutional and pedagogical knowledge and she was also uncharacteristically personable for a scientist. When the project ended, I asked her if she had any funding so that I might become a research assistant on a project related to education in her subdiscipline the next semester.[<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref40">3</reflink>] Dana was kind. She smiled, saying that she did not do science research, because she was non-tenure track faculty.</p> <p>Non-tenure track faculty! I found Dana's profile on her department's website. Suddenly, it all fell into place. Dana was not a rare woman in a mostly-male department, after all. Ten of the 15 non-tenure track faculty were women. They were responsible for teaching the vast majority of undergraduates taking courses in the department.[<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref41">4</reflink>] A handful of the students are majoring in science, but many more take its courses as prerequisites for entrance into medicine or engineering. The Science Department, where women have historically been underrepresented, did not actually completely lack women – they had been segregated into another category. As discussed in Section 3.2 and in other publications (Doerr [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref42">14</reflink>]), the tenure track was decidedly NOT a place for women. Yet the NOT tenure track was doing the feminized work of teaching. In a discipline that often attributes gender, and racial underrepresentation, to an inadequate 'pipeline', here was evidence to the contrary – alternative roles were available and disproportionately women were filling them. My immediate reaction was anger, but I also felt a glimmer of hope. Perhaps this was a good job, one that allowed women, and some men, to have work-life balance and be around for their families (Doerr [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref43">13</reflink>]). Who would I have been, if I had stayed, completed my PhD, and become a teaching faculty? This time around, I would stay with the trouble (Haraway [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref44">20</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0171843408-8">3.4. The ethnographic field</hd> <p>My ethnographic inquiry began with these sorts of questions, and unpacking them was always tied to my relationship with Dana. After I obtained approval from the research ethics board, I started my fieldwork as a former-lab-scientist turned social-scientist. I had a black notebook and an audiorecorder. I wore a cardigan with large pockets for miscellany. My first foray into the field was having lunch with Dana. We met around noon in a sandwich shop close to campus. Dana is a tall white woman, who dressed in casual yet fashionable clothes – low boots, slim jeans, a blouse and a fitted blazer. That day, she greeted me with a smile but quickly began to tell me about something that made her upset. Associate Professor Stewie had told Dana that it seemed like she 'just wanted to be the alpha female' of the teaching faculty. Stewie was in his forties and had recently been put in 'charge' of the teaching faculty. As Dana talked, I had the disoriented feeling of being in a waterfall. Nodding, taking frantic notes, I tried to ask follow up questions when Dana paused to take a bite of her salad: 'Why do you think that happened? How did you respond?' Dana and I walked back to her office and she told me about how she had her first baby at the end of her PhD and then went onto a postdoc and got pregnant again. When she left the postdoc early, to move to this city for her husband's job, her advisor told her she had been a waste. I was a little stunned and something like 'wow' came out of my mouth. Then, Dana rushed off to class and I was left on the campus path, holding my notebook.</p> <p>Over the next 20 months, I conducted fieldwork with Dana and 10 of her colleagues, including William. I snowballed my participants, meeting them though each other, and asking if I could observe their classes, tag along to meetings, help out in office hours. All participants provided their written and verbal informed consent. Peter was the oldest teaching faculty, having earned his PhD in the department in the 1980s. He stayed in the city because his wife had a good job here. This was a common story: Farah (age 50), Susie (age 50), Sonya (age 45), Denise (age 45), Kelly (age 30), and Jeremy (age 35) all had a similar situation. Farah was originally from the Middle East, the rest were US-born and self-identified their race as white. Dana (age 50) had done her PhD in a northern state and moved here when her husband got a job.[<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref45">5</reflink>] This rounded out the group who taught parallel sections of Introductory Science. There were other teaching faculty. A few taught more advanced undergraduate courses, four organized the teaching labs, and another was mainly involved with an undergraduate research methods course. I concentrated on the experiences of those teaching the Introductory course, for consistency across the course content during observations and because it was the largest group.</p> <hd id="AN0171843408-9">3.5. Alpha females</hd> <p>The label alpha female was one that I kept returning to. It clearly bothered Dana to have been called that, and it bothered me too. This agential cut provoked my sensitivity as a researcher. Butler writes how gender is a discursive means 'by which "sexed nature" or a "natural sex" is produced and established as "prediscursive", prior to culture, a politically neutral surface on which culture acts' (Butler [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref46">9</reflink>], 7). Alpha female foregrounds 'sexed nature' and primordial qualities. It is a catachresis, the concept that lacks an adequate referent, because alpha is so commonly associated with masculine performativity (Spivak [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref47">28</reflink>], 67). Its theorization in research literature reflects these contradictions (Aziz [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref48">3</reflink>]; Ward, Popson, and DiPaolo [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref49">33</reflink>]). Sahar Aziz ([<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref50">3</reflink>]) personally embraces 'Alpha Females of Color', describing how they are marginalized by 'sinister' academic archetypes, such as the troll, the whispering coward, and the liberal hypocrite. Women and men who exhibit the same characteristics endure a double standard; while men are perceived as driven, focused, confident and competent, women are labelled aggressive, insolent, and threatening. In contrast, other researchers created an inventory to identify women with 'alpha leadership' qualities. The inventory was developed on women enrolled in U.S. colleges, who the authors describe as a select population that may have a 'higher proportion of alpha females' than the general population (Ward, Popson, and DiPaolo [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref51">33</reflink>], 318). While this research promotes women in leadership, the fundamental problematic of the label itself is not discussed.</p> <p>In this ethnography, the alpha female theme that developed involved Dana's relationship with her colleague Kelly. Within the non-tenure track, there were three levels of seniority. At the start of my study, Kelly was at the entry level – teaching faculty. Dana was at the second level – senior teaching faculty. The highest level was distinguished teaching faculty. Kelly had applied for a promotion, and Dana was on her promotion committee. Dana had expressed her reservations to the committee about Kelly being promoted after only three years. As Dana explained it, Kelly did not yet have sufficient 'maturity and sound teaching, which is her main job'. But the promotion went forward. Dana said that was because 'the Chair wanted it', and felt her opinion was not taken seriously after Stewie said she 'just wanted to be the alpha female of the teaching faculty' (fieldnotes, autumn 2018). Hence the agential cut: the had chair wanted it. Why?</p> <hd id="AN0171843408-10">3.6. We need each other</hd> <p>Kelly had completed her PhD a few years before. It took her seven years to finish, longer than usual for science, because her advisor was quite old and she had worked as a TA every semester. By the end, she basically taught the class herself, and upon graduation she was asked to stay as on teaching faculty. Although she had considered taking a job in the industrial sector, she loved the city and her husband had a good job there. So she stayed. Kelly was vivacious and energetic, with an effusive teaching style. She felt that she was an integral part of the department:</p> <p>The teaching and research faculty absolutely need each other [...] It's a really good way to run a university, in my opinion, if it's done politely and with respect. We all have our strengths and they'll admit to my face that they can't teach like me. They know that they could never do what I do in the classroom, that's not their strength. I look right back at them and say 'and I could never sit in my office seven days a week writing grants', no thank you, I would absolutely die. So, we need each other and I think a lot of them realize that. (Interview, winter 2018)</p> <p>Kelly's understands herself as someone whose strength is teaching, and she gets the opportunity to do it because researchers do not have time to teach. Kelly validated the centrality of the tenure-track by positioning herself as marginal to them (Spivak [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref52">28</reflink>]). The research and teaching faculty may need each other, but there is a clear status hierarchy, because the dominants have the choice to behave 'politely and with respect' toward nondominants.</p> <p>Kelly's work was not only teaching big classes of undergraduates. After a short time on the job, she felt 'so bored' that she asked for more work than the standard two sections per semester. She was made responsible for science demonstrations and community outreach, which she took to an unprecedented level. She combined enthusiasm with an objective of making science accessible and fun. This drew attention from the media, and during my study, she appeared on network television and even hired a talent agent.</p> <p>In her public persona, Kelly combined conventional feminine qualities: long hair, skirts, high heels, with familiar markers of science: protective goggles and flame retardant overclothing. Kelly's fearless affinity for spectacles like explosions was accentuated by her excited cheering. Doing this and maintaining a sense that she was a credible scientist required intention and effort. She describes interacting with research faculty:</p> <p>when people are talking about research I follow up with actual legitimate questions and talk to them about their research [...] I remind them that I am a PhD scientist and then I can absolutely go toe-to-toe with them. (Interview, winter 2017)</p> <p>Going 'toe-to-toe', Dr Kelly used her body as a social project to undo gender norms (Butler [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref53">11</reflink>]). She was a PhD scientist who got public attention for her groundbreaking manner of interpreting knowledge. She was able to ask 'legitimate' questions and converse about cutting-edge research, then convey that to a general audience. Kelly engaged in wilful refusal of 'gendered expectations and unproductive binaries' (Guyotte, Flint, and Shelton [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref54">17</reflink>], 213) by pushing back and asserting herself with distinctive gender performativity. When she wanted to be promoted her status meant that the 'Chair wanted it' and Dana's opinion was overridden.</p> <hd id="AN0171843408-11">3.7. Gender bias and less than a human</hd> <p>During my fieldwork with Dana, she recalled many examples of how she experienced marginalization (Doerr [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref55">14</reflink>]). She recalled a meeting planning for the remodelling of the science building, when the non-tenure track faculty were complaining they did not know where their offices would be relocated to. The Chair indicated it was Dana's job to organize it. She recalled her reply:</p> <p>'With all due respect, that job was just thrown at me. I have gotten no directive about what to do' [then she remembered]. There was just silence for a moment after that. No-one backed me up. William was there, but he didn't say anything. (Fieldnotes, spring 2018)</p> <p>When Dana defends herself to a man with more power, she couches her statement with the nicety 'all due respect'. She felt she was in the right, and expected someone might 'back her up'. Silence from those with higher status was used to disempower Dana, suggesting the normative expectation was to accept blame, even if she felt it was undeserved. This opens up space for silencing to act as a micro-inequality (Aiston and Fo [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref56">2</reflink>]) and to oppress Dana: 'my silence today is not voluntary, it is done to me and holds me back' (Ahonen et al. [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref57">1</reflink>], 452). Later that afternoon:</p> <p>Jane, who's been here forever, sent me an email saying that she was very sorry the chair talked to me in that way and that I am well respected member of our department. So, she would go to bat for me but she didn't come up and say it to me. But she is very reserved. Maybe that's her style. (Fieldnotes, spring 2018)</p> <p>By writing privately to Dana, Jane acknowledged that Dana was not treated well by the chair, and offered up that Dana is well-respected. Kelly also mentioned respect, saying the system of teaching and research faculty could work if it was done 'politely and with respect'. Professor Jane to keep silent along with everyone else in the room, rather than 'going to bat' publicly. It left Dana alone in her resistance to the Chair's condemnation. Dana reasoned that this was because Jane has a reserved style, a style that insulated Jane from the alpha female label.</p> <p>Silence and then a hidden apology seem to gaslight Dana. After she speaks up, she is publicly humiliated and then privately she is 'made to mistrust [her] experiences and feelings, made to feel small' (Edwards et al. [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref58">15</reflink>], 12). This treatment took a toll. Dana continually tried to make sense of her feelings of diminishment despite putting so much honest effort into her work. Reflecting on her many years doing this job, she said:</p> <p>I have been made to feel like less than a person [...] I do think that my passion has been squashed by the idiots that I work with. I have considered going to human resources and just saying you know what these people need to be talked to. I don't think anyone needs to be fired but this is why we have problems. It was gender, it was totally gender bias on their part. (Interview, winter 2018)</p> <p>Butler writes that a 'normative conception of gender can undo one's personhood, undermining the capacity to persevere in a livable life' ([<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref59">11</reflink>], 1). Dana's passion has been squashed, and she points directly to gender bias propagated by idiots. Yet she also absolves them of consequences, looking to human resources to correct a problem, but not to the extent that 'anyone needs to be fired'. Ultimately, Dana left the science department after almost twenty for the same position in another department.</p> <hd id="AN0171843408-12">3.8. Queering the glass ceiling with the cyborg</hd> <p>Kelly had witnessed Dana's experiences, and she had also experienced sexism at work. She was the guest one Saturday afternoon at a meeting of the Women Students in Sciences group, and she told a story from when she was a PhD student. Travelling for a conference, a tenured professor asked her and another female student to accompany him to a strip club. Later, faced with multiple credible complaints of inappropriate behaviours, that professor resigned. Kelly wrapped up with:</p> <p>Change can happen if strong women stay confident and stick together. That's why I can't leave, even though I have gotten headhunted by other top universities. I think things are slowly changing. If I stay I can probably get tenure. (Fieldnotes, spring 2019)</p> <p>Kelly invokes the feminist solidarity of 'strong women'. With whom? Jane and Dana, who have experience but also comply with the institution? Perhaps the young women in this meeting, who were college students during the #MeToo uproar and may have more contemporary conceptualizations of gender (Risman [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref60">27</reflink>])? Maybe me, scribbling notes at the table next to Kelly, bringing awareness to gender equity because I am researching it. William called the non-tenure track part of a 'weird pervasive culture of absolutely second-class citizens' (interview, spring 2019). Kelly, by saying she thinks she can get into the tenure track, is queering the second-class and changing the norms of the institution. But she also recognizes she cannot do it alone, and she needs the support of others (Heijstra and Pétursdóttir [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref61">21</reflink>]).</p> <p>Kelly's prediction of getting tenure can also be read through the lens of a speculative feminism (Haraway [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref62">20</reflink>]) and the concept of the cyborg. As a hybrid, the cyborg is 'a creature of social reality as well as a creature of fiction' (Haraway [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref63">19</reflink>], 151). Kelly's gender performativity is shaped by her social reality, and through it she is authoring a transgressive path forward. Perhaps she will become tenure track by queering the non-tenure track: 'the main trouble with cyborgs, of course, is that they are the illegitimate offspring of patriarchal capitalism [...] But illegitimate offspring are often exceedingly unfaithful to their origins' (<reflink idref="bib151" id="ref64">151</reflink>). Getting on the tenure track is an expression of the cyborg's 'ironic faith, by blasphemy' (<reflink idref="bib151" id="ref65">151</reflink>), which surprisingly outlandish but uttered with full seriousness, a rhetorical flourish fully grounded in feminism. Response-ability shifts the focus from empowerment to relationality, which makes space for 'critically and creatively finding new ways of collectively being together' (Higgins et al. [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref66">22</reflink>], 375). These women can hear discourses of feminist solidarity but as relatively privileged people in a broader hierarchy, they do not organize themselves to confront their marginalization together.</p> <hd id="AN0171843408-13">3.9. Living as cyborgs in a post-human world</hd> <p>When I did this study, I was completing my PhD in Education. I had left the lab many years before, but my love for my discipline and my questions about why I had not stayed left me unsettled. I wondered, would I have become teaching faculty, and who would I have been, if I had stayed. It is through doing a diffractive analysis that I come to realize that these are open questions that also act as agential cuts, because the teaching faculty and I were, ironically, becoming-together. Two final examples illustrate how 'irony is about humour and serious play. It is also a rhetorical strategy and a political method' (Haraway [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref67">19</reflink>], 149).</p> <p>One afternoon in the late spring of 2018, Dana, Peter and I were together in their office, gathering our things after a full day of teaching. Dana caught my eye and paused. Then: 'How is your research going?' I felt my face flush as I deflected: 'Um, fine, I think'. Then Dana remarked, with a wry smile and kind eyes: 'Well, if you stay long enough, you might become one of us'. The three of us chuckled. With irony, they shaped me, and I shaped them. There was something a little funny about me – scurrying around with my notebook, squinting at their everyday, scrutinizing everything for gender, coming out as queer in the process. This method, inherently political, often felt like 'serious play'.</p> <p>A few weeks later, Dana was striding across campus and I was hurrying alongside. She was telling me about something unfair involving men taking credit for her curriculum. She remarked: 'You know, I am really becoming a feminist. It's just, everything with #MeToo and Trump, and then thinking more about what has happened to me all these years'. And then I knew what to say: 'I'm glad. Being a feminist helps me understand it too. I'm glad we get to learn from each other'. Rosi Braidotti asked: 'what counts as human in a post-human world?' (Braidotti [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref68">7</reflink>], 104). My analysis suggests that the category 'woman' might be deconstructed 'across a multiplicity of discourses, positions and meanings' to re-imagine contemporary feminism as 'a new kind of politics, based on temporary and mobile coalitions and on affinity' (<reflink idref="bib105" id="ref69">105</reflink>). Becoming-with this diffractive analysis provides evidence for this new feminism, and to a humble, local, and tentative theorization of feminist solidarity. Like Leonard Cohen's bell that can still ring, with light getting in through the cracks made by agential cuts, this inquiry was ignited by 'a musing pause, a vistitational heft inviting me to attend again' (Taylor [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref70">31</reflink>]) to what it means to do (post)qualitative research.</p> <hd id="AN0171843408-14">4. Toward a pattern of diffractive intraference</hd> <p>This inquiry into the nature of feminist solidarity was guided by the intra-activity of agential cuts on and amongst gendered bodies in teaching-intensive positions in academic science. The cuts of alpha female, silencing, less-than-person, squashing passion, and staying to get tenure illuminate a new diffractive pattern, one that stays with the trouble and takes steps towards queering the glass ceiling. Becoming-with the teaching faculty troubled what it meant to research a career in science, because women in the study wanted to inform the study. They wanted to tell the story about injustice. They are becoming feminists while simultaneously troubling definitions of feminism that rely on binaries. My intra-activity with the field also queers this project's feminism. My own becoming was propelled by experiences of marginalization in the same setting, and though this project I embodied my unrealized yet possible future self. If I had stayed, would I have been on the track to win a Nobel Prize? Would I have become teaching faculty? But rather than staying, I returned. And through this inquiry, Dana, Kelly and I became cyborgs, unfaithful to our origins, yet keeping an ironic faith in the discipline, the chemistry that bonded us together as post-human feminists (Haraway [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref71">19</reflink>]; Pearse and Keane [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref72">26</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0171843408-15">Acknowledgements</hd> <p>I extend my deepest thanks to my colleagues in Malmö, especially Helen Hasslöf and Paul Clucas, who read and provided advice on several versions of this manuscript. Bjørn Friis Johannsen was an important resource for developing ideas, editorial feedback, and thorough proofreading. Most of all, gratitude to the ethnographic participants who let me into their lives with a depth of dignity and courage.</p> <hd id="AN0171843408-16">Disclosure statement</hd> <p>No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).</p> <hd id="AN0171843408-17">Ethical statement</hd> <p>This research project was approved by the Institutional Review Board of the University of Texas at Austin. It was study number 2017-07-0059.</p> <ref id="AN0171843408-18"> <title> Notes </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref32" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> As part of my research, William expressed to me that he identified as a cis-man and preferred he/him pronouns.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref35" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Jane identified as a cis-woman and preferred she/her pronouns.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref40" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> At BiggestU, many graduate students in Education must hustle every semester, particularly their beginning years, to secure funding as GRAs and TAs. If we were lucky, we could get 20 hours as a GRA, which made us full-time. Our tuition was waived and we got a living stipend. When unlucky, we were the TA for two courses in the education department for the same benefit. I usually had a mixture of TA-ing one course for 10 hours and 10 hours of GRA.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref1" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> About 5000 undergraduates are taking this discipline's courses each semester, and the majority are enrolled in Introductory Science I and II.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref4" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> All these informants were cis-(wo)men, used she/he pronouns, and were partnered with people they called their wife/husband.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <ref id="AN0171843408-19"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibtext> Ahonen, Pasi, Annika Blomberg, Katherine Doerr, Katja Einola, Anna Elkina, Grace Gao, Jennifer Hambleton, et al. 2020. " Writing Resistance Together." Gender, Work & Organization 27 (4): 447 – 470. doi: 10.1111/gwao.12441.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Aiston, Sarah Jane, and Chee Kent Fo. 2021. " The Silence/Ing of Academic Women." Gender and Education 33 (2): 138 – 155. doi: 10.1080/09540253.2020.1716955.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Aziz, Sahar. 2019. " The Alpha Female and the Sinister Seven." In Presumed Incompetent II: Race, Class, Power and Resistance for Women in Academia, edited by Y. F. Niemann, G. G. Muhs, and C. G. González, 180 – 193. Logan, UT : Utah State University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Barad, Karen. 2003. " Posthumanist Performativity: Toward an Understanding of How Matter Comes to Matter." Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society 28 (3): 801 – 831. doi: 10.1086/345321.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Barad, Karen. 2007. Meeting the Universe Halfway. Durham : Duke University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref33" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Blair-Loy, Mary, and Erin A. Cech. 2022. Misconceiving Merit: Paradoxes of Excellence and Devotion in Academic Science and Engineering. Chicago, IL : The University of Chicago Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref68" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Braidotti, Rosi. 1994. Nomadic Subjects: Embodiment and Sexual Difference in Contemporary Feminist Theory. New York : Columbia University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref6" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Braidotti, Rosi. 2022. Posthuman Feminism. Cambridge : Polity Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref10" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Butler, Judith. 1990. Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity. Thinking Gender. New York : Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Butler, Judith. 1995. " Contingent Foundations: Feminism and the Question of 'Postmodernism.'." In Feminist Contentions. A Philosophical Exchange, edited by S. Benhabib, J. Butler, D. Cornell, and N. Fraser, 35 – 57. New York : Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Butler, Judith. 2004. Undoing Gender. New York : Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Doerr, Katherine. 2021. " Testing and Cheating: Technologies of Power and Resistance." Cultural Studies of Science Education 16 (4): 1315 – 1334. doi: 10.1007/s11422-021-10048-6.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Doerr, Katherine. 2022. " 'Flying Under the Radar': Postfeminism and Teaching in Academic Science." Gender, Work & Organization. doi: 10.1111/gwao.12922.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Doerr, Katherine. 2023. " Chutes and Ladders: Gendered Systems of Privilege and Marginalization in University Science Teaching." Journal of Women and Gender in Higher Education 16 (2): 115 – 136. doi: 10.1080/26379112.2023.2213893.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Edwards, Michaela, Laura Mitchell, Catherine Abe, Emily Cooper, Janet Johansson, and Maranda Ridgway. 2022. " 'I Am Not a Gentleman Academic': Telling Our Truths of Micro-Coercive Control and Gaslighting in Business Schools Using 'Faction'." Gender, Work & Organization. doi: 10.1111/gwao.12905. Advance online publication.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gilbert, Emilee, Nida Denson, and Gabrielle Weidemann. 2022. " Negotiating Co-existing Subjectivities: The New Maternal Self in the Academy." Gender and Education 34 (7): 869 – 885. doi: 10.1080/09540253.2022.2094347.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Guyotte, Kelly W., Maureen A. Flint, and Stephanie Anne Shelton. 2021. " Giving up as a Willful Feminist Practice." Gender and Education 33 (2): 202 – 216. doi: 10.1080/09540253.2020.1743821.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Haraway, Donna. 1988. " Situated Knowledges: The Science Question in Feminism and the Privilege of Partial Perspective." Feminist Studies 14 (3): 575 – 599. doi: 10.2307/3178066.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Haraway, Donna. 1991. Simians, Cyborgs, and Women: The Reinvention of Nature. New York : Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Haraway, Donna. 2016. Staying with the Trouble: Making Kin in the Chthulucene. Durham : Duke University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Heijstra, Thamar Melanie, and Gyða Margrét Pétursdóttir. 2022. " Sisterly Advice for Feminists in Academia When Playing the Game and Working the Cracks." Gender and Education 34 (3): 247 – 261. doi: 10.1080/09540253.2021.1929857.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Higgins, Marc, Blue Mahy, Rouhollah Aghasaleh, and Patrick Enderle. 2019. " Patchworking Response-Ability in Science and Technology Education." Reconceptualizing Educational Research Methodology 10 (2–3): 356 – 383. doi: 10.7577/rerm.3683.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jackson, Alecia Youngblood, and Lisa A. Mazzei. 2012. Thinking with Theory in Qualitative Research: Viewing Data Across Multiple Perspectives. New York : Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jobér, Anna, Anna Günther-Hanssen, and Kristina Andersson. 2021. " From Swings, Through Physics, with Pendulums, to Gendering: Re-Turning Diffractive Analyses on Science and Gender in Preschool." Reconceptualizing Educational Research Methodology 12 (2), doi: 10.7577/rerm.4678.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mahy, Blue, and Maria FG Wallace. 2022. " The Science-Ethics Nexus: A Speculative Posthumanist Examination of Secondary School Science." Cultural Studies of Science Education 17 (4): 1013 – 1038. doi: 10.1007/s11422-021-10089-x.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pearse, Rebecca, and Helen Keane. 2023. " How Feminist Knowledge Is Made in and Beyond Disciplines." Gender and Education 35 (1): 1 – 17. doi: 10.1080/09540253.2022.2137105.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Risman, Barbara J. 2018. Where the Millennials Will Take Us: A New Generation Wrestles with the Gender Structure. New York : Oxford University Press USA.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Spivak, Gayatri Chakravorty. 2009. Outside in the Teaching Machine. New York : Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Strom, Katie, Jessica Ringrose, Jayne Osgood, and Emma Renold. 2019. " Editorial: PhEmaterialism: Response-Able Research & Pedagogy." Reconceptualizing Educational Research Methodology 10 (2–3), doi: 10.7577/rerm.3649.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Subramaniam, Banu. 2009. " Moored Metamorphoses: A Retrospective Essay on Feminist Science Studies." Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society 34 (4): 951 – 980. doi: 10.1086/597147.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Taylor, Carol A. 2021. " Flipping Methodology: Or, Errancy in the Meanwhile and the Need to Remove Doors." Qualitative Inquiry 27 (2): 235 – 238. doi: 10.1177/1077800420943513.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Utoft, Ea Høg. 2020. "' All the Single Ladies' as the Ideal Academic During Times of COVID-19? " Gender, Work & Organization 27 (5): 778 – 787. doi: 10.1111/gwao.12478.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ward, Rose Marie, Halle C. Popson, and Donald G. DiPaolo. 2010. " Defining the Alpha Female: A Female Leadership Measure." Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies 17 (3): 309 – 320. doi: 10.1177/1548051810368681.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zeiler, Kristin. 2020. " Why Feminist Technoscience and Feminist Phenomenology Should Engage with Each Other: On Subjectification/Subjectivity." Feminist Theory 21 (3): 367 – 390. doi: 10.1177/1464700120920763.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Katherine Doerr</p> <p>Reported by Author</p> <p></p> <p>Katherine Doerr is an Assistant Professor in the Centre for Teaching and Learning at Malmö University. KT's research is at the nexus of teaching, science, and gender. They have a particular interest in using feminist theory to examine how hegemonic masculinity and whiteness are (re)produced through normative discourses in academic science.</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib140" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref13"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref14"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib595" firstref="ref15"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib818" firstref="ref18"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib57" firstref="ref20"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref21"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref22"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref23"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref25"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref26"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref28"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref34"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref38"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref39"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref49"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref54"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref58"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref60"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref61"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref63"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib151" firstref="ref64"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref66"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib105" firstref="ref69"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref70"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref72"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1398338
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Queering the Glass Ceiling: Alpha Females, Cyborgs, and the Non-Tenure Track in Science
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Doerr%2C+Katherine%22">Doerr, Katherine</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Gender+and+Education%22"><i>Gender and Education</i></searchLink>. 2023 35(6-7):537-551.
– 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: 15
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2023
– 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="%22Nontenured+Faculty%22">Nontenured Faculty</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Females%22">Females</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Women+Faculty%22">Women Faculty</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22College+Faculty%22">College Faculty</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Teacher+Researchers%22">Teacher Researchers</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Gender+Differences%22">Gender Differences</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Teacher+Characteristics%22">Teacher Characteristics</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Feminism%22">Feminism</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Ethnography%22">Ethnography</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Social+Theories%22">Social Theories</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Science+Teachers%22">Science Teachers</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Gender+Bias%22">Gender Bias</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1080/09540253.2023.2231518
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 0954-0253<br />1360-0516
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: This inquiry into the nature of feminist solidarity in the academic sciences is guided by the intra-activity of gendered bodies in teaching-intensive faculty positions. It uses diffractive methodology to examine how response-able research practice can account for enactment of social discourse through agential cuts. Over the course of a two-year ethnography in a university with high research activity, gender performativity in the contested space of feminized teaching and masculine science was analysed. This article aims to make visible how researcher subjectivities entangle with data collection. Results show how specific agential cuts -- alpha female, silencing, less-than-person, squashing passion, and staying to get tenure -- illuminate a unique diffractive pattern. The pattern troubles structural notions of feminist solidarity, as ethnographic participants marginalized by institutional hierarchies survive by queering it. Furthermore, the inquiry gestures towards a humble, local, and tentative contribution to post-human theorizing on 'queering the glass ceiling'.
– 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: EJ1398338
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1398338
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1080/09540253.2023.2231518
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 15
        StartPage: 537
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Nontenured Faculty
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Females
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Women Faculty
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: College Faculty
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Teacher Researchers
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Gender Differences
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Teacher Characteristics
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Feminism
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Ethnography
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Social Theories
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Science Teachers
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Gender Bias
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Queering the Glass Ceiling: Alpha Females, Cyborgs, and the Non-Tenure Track in Science
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Doerr, Katherine
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 01
              Type: published
              Y: 2023
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 0954-0253
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 1360-0516
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 35
            – Type: issue
              Value: 6-7
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Gender and Education
              Type: main
ResultId 1