Creating a more inclusive academic environment: lessons learned from the research of Dounia Bourabain

Ella Oelbrandt, Vrije Universiteit Brussel
Jan De Schampheleire, Vrije Universiteit Brussel

The aim of the TARGETED-MPI project is to create a more equal and inclusive culture in Business & Management Schools. At the Vrije Universiteit Brussel (VUB), this means that the Faculty of Social Sciences and Solvay Business School (ES) and its employees are the focus of the Gender Equality Plan (GEP). Recently, at our faculty, dr. Dounia Bourabain finished her PhD on everyday sexism and racism. In this blogpost we will summarize her findings and focus on the suggestions for a more inclusive academic workplace. The findings of dr. Bourabain are highly relevant to the TARGETED-MPI project and for the future enhancement of VUB’s GEP.

Everyday discrimination and the leaky pipeline

Although inequality in corporate workspaces is a well-documented issue, discrimination in academia is a topic that deserves additional attention. The existing literature on inequality in academia is growing and Bourabain merges different aspects in her research. Two important concepts are particularly valuable for the TARGETED-MPI project.

The first concept is the idea of intersectionality, a common concept in research on inequality indicating that inequality never has a single starting point but rather has multiple, intersecting origins. Besides those intersecting roots of inequality, the concept of intersectionality also emphasises the underlying power structures. In her research, Bourabain combines gender and ethnic background to compare and analyse the different forms of everyday racism and everyday sexism. While the current GEP of TARGETED-MPI mainly focuses on gender inequality, Bourabain’s research inspires us to also includes inequalities based on ethnic background. The student population of Faculty ES is highly diverse and international, but the staff is still mainly from the ethnic majority.

The second valuable concept is the leaky pipeline. This phenomenon suggests that women experience discrimination and injustice throughout their career, with consequences for their later career path. On the aggregate level such processes lead to a lower share of ethnic majority women (EMAW) and ethnic minority women (EMIW) among professors.

To identify and understand these barriers, Bourabain conducted 50 in-depth interviews with women in their early research career from five different Belgian universities on topics like experiences with discrimination, the work environment and coping with injustice. Her research and conclusions nicely complement the research actions made in the TARGETED-MPI project. The research question Bourabain wanted to answer by conducting interviews was “How do women academics from ethnic majoritized and minoritized backgrounds experience and respond to gender inequality in Dutch-speaking higher education institutions?”.

Bourabain reveals four forms of everyday sexism and racism. These provide a useful framework for understanding the experiences of EMAW and EMIW.

The first and most well-known expression of everyday discrimination is the smokescreen of equality, meaning that the higher management verbally commits to equality and portrays the organization as inclusive, but at the same time shows a lack of actual action and behavioural change. A frequently used concept here is window dressing and the use of diversity as a commercial value. Some expressions of the smokescreen of equality are the hypervisibility of women and people of colour in advertisements or the inadequate functioning of reporting offices for transgressive behaviour and victim-blaming (we will come back to this when we talk about the suggestions for a more inclusive environment).

The second expression of everyday discrimination is the (in)formal cloning. Cloning in this context refers to the lack of support and supervision for women and differential encouragement compared to young men researchers. Women are excluded from necessary aspects of an academic career such as networking, leading to the cloning of male characteristics. The stereotypical profile of the “knowledge holder” is a white, male researcher and people who don’t fit this norm might be confronted with exclusionary practices – for example, the are being treated unequal in different ways.

The third mechanism is patronizing. It refers to the fact that women may be less recognized or valued in their high position. This is what Bourabain calls the mistaken identity of women, meaning that women are not addressed in the way they should be. This is where EMAW and EMIW have different experiences. EMIW in the social sciences encounter an additional paradox that stems from the act of patronization where “on the one hand, their objectivity is questioned, but on the other hand, they are also considered to be those that are the most fit -or rather- only fit to conduct research on themes related to their identity” (Bourabain, 2021, p.157).  Their identity is in this patronizing act constricted to ethnic relations, migration and inequality.

The last form of everyday sexism and racism is a unique experience of EMIW and is more related to a man as authoritarian figure who’s in charge of controlling behaviour. This everyday gendered racism is appointed by the term paternalism, expressed in the micro-management of EMIW by supervisors. This micro-management means they experience less intellectual freedom because of the stereotypical expectations of EMIW as being submissive and silent and the differential treatment.

Also, the resistance tactics related to everyday discrimination are an important component of the research of Bourabain. The baseline of the resistance tactics is that women develop tactics to deal with their hostile environment, both inside and outside academia. Every newcomer is influenced by existing power relations and goes through a process of socialization to acquire the ruling norms and expectations. Sometimes this socialization is unsuccessful and then resistance tactics become necessary to engage in everyday interactions.

Radical and soft reformations

It is clear by now that everyday inequality and discrimination is still highly present and influences the way women feel about their work environment. Out of necessity, they create resistance tactics to be able to function in a hostile environment. Because of that conclusion, institutional action is needed to create a more welcoming, open academic environment. Based on the insight from her research, Bourabain also made suggestions to create a more inclusive academia.

The most bold and hopeful suggestion is the radical transformation of the existing infrastructure with as alternative “the university of the common”.

Academia in general is currently following the economic logic of neoliberalism, which pushes towards the achievement of productivity and efficiency. This kills the creativity, hinders the slow acquisition of knowledge and poses threats for a human-centred governing. Instead, the university of the common is a “decolonizeduniversity that actively centres values of community, social justice and equality. Through feminist and anti-racist leadership combined with bottom-up organizing, academics are actively building a university that fits all. Radical reforms require support and long-term commitment, while short-term minor reforms are also necessary” (Bourabain, 2021, p.272). Let us now analyse the highlighted aspects and elaborate on how we can integrate them into our GEP.

Suggestions for a future GEP

Ideally, we can include both the radical reforms and quick wins into our current and future GEP. The TARGETED-MPI project focuses on the faculty in which the business school is located and can be seen as a drop in the ocean, nevertheless the GEP is a significant initiative within hat work context – but also as an inspiring example for other faculties and institutions. Some suggestions of Bourabain are already included in one way or another, while others are new ideas.

At VUB, the GEP attached to TARGETED-MPI tries to go beyond the smokescreen of equality by suggesting practical and manageable aims. Secondly, the rationale behind the project is informed by gender mainstreaming. Because the project is funded by the European Commission and Horizon2020, gender mainstreaming is inherently part of the project. Besides these more practical characteristics, the third take-away point concerns the content of the GEP. The first objective of the GEP is equality and diversity in the recruitment, selection and promotion. Although initially not stated clearly, this objective follows the logic of anti-racist and feminist governing. To make selection and promotion procedures equal and diverse, having clear values is necessary. The second objective is diversity in the curriculum. This connects more directly to the radical reformation of decolonization. At VUB, the Equality Team conducted a screening of some programs (Yes We Scan) to check whether the curriculum was diverse and raised different voices. The results of this screening can be incorporated by other programs and can indicate the sore points in the current curriculum. The thirds and last objective concerns creating a workable work culture for all. While this includes many aspects of the work environment, we focused on working conditions relating to gender issues. The complaint and reporting offices are one of the included topics. As VUB recently faced some situations regarding transgressive behaviour and reportedly insufficiently responded to the complaints, the complaint procedure is now being reformed.

Although we already incorporated some elements of the university of the common, there is always room for a more explicit engagement or additional actions. The concept of anti-racist feminist governing and collectivizing are crucial aspects of the structure of the organization that need to change. In the composition and implementation of the next phase of the GEP, we will investigate these concepts further and look how they can be incorporated on the faculty level. Other, more substantive additions are the safe spaces and necessary (in)formal support. These two quick wins are important elements for an inclusive workplace in general, also outside academia. It is important to develop such policies oriented towards maximizing inclusiveness and raising awareness. As a workable work culture for all is already an important aspect of the GEP, safe spaces and (in)formal support are possible points of attention when creating this welcoming culture.

Overall, the research of Dounia Bourabain thoughtfully brings together different aspects of inequality in academia. The research contributes to a better understanding of the roots of the leaky pipeline. The four observed forms of everyday discrimination make a good background for understanding the phenomenon, which is important when constructing a Gender Equality Plan. Bourabain furthermore provides useful suggestions on how to change the institutional culture and structure through both long-term commitment and quick wins. While women are often forced to develop resistance tactics to handle the inequal and hostile situation, applying the above-discussed suggestions can provide a more welcoming and inclusive work environment.