Microsoft Word doctoral thesis final[1]. doc

Promotion procedures 
 
In addition to selection and hiring practices, the procedures and criteria used in 
promotions may present obstacles to women’s advancement. As early as 1979, Soldewell 
observed women in higher education administration and noted that even with their 
competence, diligence, talents and contributions, women should not expect to be 

---

 
72
recognised and promoted. The promotion system for them seems to operate just below 
the highest levels of administration and decision-making. There are fewer competent and 
well qualified women managers who are accorded the highest positions than are available 
for executive leadership (Soldewell 1979). The position does not seem to have altered 
much even in the twentieth and twenty first century. This is apparent in the ensuing 
discussion. 
 
Researchers such as Forster (2001); Sutherland (1994)  and Brown (1997) note that 
promotion systems still largely rely on the publication records of candidates for 
appointments and promotions, although  the stated criteria include “excellence in 
teaching , administration and research”( Brown 1997:115).  Women are thus promoted 
less often than men and this is hardly surprising given their multiplicity of roles. This 
ensures that less time is available for academic work and career development after 
homemaking; child-caring responsibilities; teaching and pastoral care. The greater 
demand on academic women’s time hinders research productivity and reduces chances 
for progress. Brooks’ (1997) study of academic women also echoes the same sentiments 
regarding the productivity and promotion of academic women. She found that workload 
and the number and range of responsibilities held were directly related to women’s 
reduced productivity and chances for promotion. A study of differences in male and 
female research productivity produced evidence that time taken up by teaching, 
administration and family commitments impeded women’s research productivity to a 
greater extent than it did for male academics (Brown 1997).  
 
In some cases criteria for promotion are either not clearly defined (Sutherland 1985) or 
are poorly distributed to everyone or they “operate in a fragmented, piecemeal and 
inappropriately confidential manner” (Brown 1997:116). For instance, as Mares 
(1990:73) puts it, the interpretation of what constitutes a ‘good’ research topic and a 
‘proper’ journal remain hidden and can therefore “militate against the selection of a 
woman”. An inadequately developed research and publications record may be a serious 
barrier to development especially in cases where this criterion is, in Sutherland’s 
(1994:177) terms “the major –sometimes the only criterion for advancement.” Another 
promotion barrier for women is who makes the recommendation for promotion. Often the 

---

 
73
onus is on the head of department to make a recommendation. Ryder (1996) and Brown 
(1997) see this as a potential problem. Brown believes promotions made on the basis of 
recommendations by a head of department have the “potential to suffer from the exercise 
of local interests in the hands of (for the most part) under-trained managers.” Ryder 
thinks that chances for promotion may be blocked for certain people if the head of 
department does not put their names forward or argue their cases. Of course this may 
apply to male and female academics, but because frequently men are heads of 
department, chances are that they would naturally put forward names of male academics 
and may thus be less inclined to argue for the promotion of a female academic. In the 
case of a female manager, her chances of progress to the next level of management may 
be jeopardised by expectations of excellence. She may be expected to perform far better 
than her male counterparts to be considered for promotion.   
 
(ii) Research 
productivity 
 
It is well-documented that research and publication is an important criterion for career 
advancement for academics. In many universities teaching and community service do not 
seem to count as much in decisions regarding promotions to senior academic ranks,