540 Copyediting Final (2).docx VOLUME 44, 2025 ISSN 1093-7099 EDITORS: BEVERLY J. IRBY, NAHED ABDELRAHMAN, JULIA BALLENGER, SONIA RODRIGUEZ, CYNTHIA GALLARDO, AND BENJAMIN JANKENS ASSISTANT EDITORS: JORDAN DONOP & KRISTINA HALL Advancing Women in Leadership Vol. 44, 57-71, 2025 Available online at http://www.awlj.org/ ISSN 1093-7099 Full Length Research Paper Exploring the work of women faculty through the lens of care: An Institutional Ethnography of caregiving and carereceiving in higher education Emily C. S. Johnson, Caitlin M. Shovkoplyas, Laura J. Parson, Fredricka R Saunders, Lisa R. Arnold, Rajani Ganesh Pillai Emily Johnson: PhD Candidate, North Dakota State University, emily.johnson108@ndsu.edu Caitlin Shovkoplyas: PhD, North Dakota State University, cailin.shovkoplyas@ndsu.edu Laura Parson: PhD, North Dakota State University, laura.parson@ndsu.edu Fredricka Saunders: PhD Candidate, North Dakota State University, Fredricka.saunders@ndsu.edu Lisa Arnold: PhD, North Dakota State University, lisa.arnold@ndsu.edu Rajani Ganesh Pillai: PhD, North Dakota State University, Rajani.pillai@ndsu.edu Accepted August 20, 2025 In this institutional ethnography, we explored how women faculty members at a Midwest Research University (MWU) experienced the promotion and tenure evaluation (PTE) process through the lens of feminist standpoint theory. Beginning from the standpoint of women faculty navigating the PTE process, we employed institutional ethnographic methods first to identify the work of giving and receiving care among women academic workers. We then explored the institutional and organizational ruling relations that coordinated that work. Our findings consist of the disjunctures or conflicts between the day-to-day experiences and how women faculty interact with the institutional structures that coordinate their work. Women focus group participants described feeling like they were at a disadvantage because they were experiencing additional pressure to take on caregiving work, and that their carereceiving work was undervalued; participants reported conflicts between the work and what they perceived as required by organizational PTE policy. We conclude by calling for systemic support for faculty mentoring activities. We also recommend that for these changes to be lasting, recognition for mentoring activities be included in the Promotion and tenure evaluation (PTE) process with formalized measurement methods. Keywords: institutional ethnography, women faculty, caregiving, care receiving, receiving care, uncompensated work, ideal academic worker, promotion, tenure, career advancement, feminist standpoint theory, gender equity According to the 2020 American Association of University Professors (AAUP), women comprised 43 percent of tenured or tenure-track faculty and 54 percent of full-time and non-tenure track faculty (AAUP, 2020). Some scholars (Aiston & Fo, 2021; Barrett & Barrett, 2011) suggest these statistics are evidence that higher education is a gendered organization, where women faculty are disadvantaged because they are not the “ideal worker,” which, in higher education, is based on a masculine ideal academic work. Specifically, Acker’s (1990) gendered organization theory describes, in part, how an institution replicates gendered practices, policies, and procedures based on an unencumbered man as the normative worker. In higher education, the discourse of the ideal academic worker poses challenges for women who are expected to meet masculinized expectations while also fulfilling gendered expectations, such as performing emotional labor (Lund & Tienari, 2018) and conforming to the abject woman's body to masculine expectations (Blalock et al., 2023; Fotaki, 2013). In higher education, this “double bind” often results in women faculty providing care above and beyond that of their man-identifying peers (Acker, 1990, 2006; Blalock et al., 2023; Fotaki, 2013; Howell et al., 2017). As the underrepresentation of women has persisted despite improvements, additional research is needed to understand how institutional and systemic barriers coordinate the work of women faculty. To contribute to this body of research, we explored the work associated with caregiving and carereceiving behaviors among women faculty (e.g., serving on committees, mentoring colleagues, and needing a mentor; Blood et al., 2012; Kosoko-Lasaki et al., 2006; Voytko et al., 2018). We aim to contribute to an exploration of the non-compensated work of caregiving and carereceiving among women faculty. While a substantial amount of research has been conducted on the topic of mentorship and the positive role it plays for women faculty 58 Advancing Women in Leadership Journal-Volume 44 (Blood et al., 2012; Davis & Maldonado, 2015; Gibson, 2004; Kosoko-Lasaki et al., 2006; Voytko et al., 2018), we aim to explore how expectations that a woman faculty member will have a mentor coordinates their work. We focused on caregiving work that women faculty feel expected to take on, such as caring for students or guiding new faculty (Misra et al., 2011), and the barriers to sustainable carereceiving, like mentorship, contributing to the discourse of the ideal woman academic worker. In the present study, we sought to expand our understanding of the systemic barriers that face women faculty by identifying the translocal practices that organize the ways in which women faculty provide and receive care. To achieve this, we analyzed focus group data collected from women- and men-identifying faculty at Midwest Research University (MWU; pseudonym) using an institutional ethnographic approach to data analysis. Using feminist standpoint theory, we identified the work of women faculty. Then we examined the policies, practices, procedures, and discourses that coordinated caregiving and care-receiving work for these women faculty members. Our analysis suggested that institutional policies from the State Board of Higher Education, organizational promotion, tenure, and evaluation (PTE) policies, and the discourse of an ideal academic worker created challenges for women faculty, as they felt pressure to accept additional caregiving work, which created barriers to sustainable carereceiving. First, we discuss the literature on caregiving, carereceiving, and the discourse of the ideal academic worker. We then discuss our methods and data analysis, using entry-level focus group data, which informed the document analysis of MWU policies. We then describe the findings as they relate to the literature and conclude with our discussion and recommendations. Caregiving, Carereceiving, and Women Faculty Women faculty face gendered expectations to align with the masculine definitions of academia while embodying feminine characteristics of caregivers without receiving reward (Acker, 1990; Blalock et al., 2023; Howell et al., 2017; Lund & Tienari, 2018). Additionally, gendered expectations are perpetuated in the structures of academic organizations, rewarding individualistic behaviour with unmeasured expectations for caregiving work. Indeed, with academia valuing individuality (Howell et al., 2017) and the expectation that the ideal worker is entirely focused on work (Acker, 1990), marginalized faculty, particularly women, are often unable to receive care for their professional and personal development. First, we describe feminist standpoint theory as our theoretical framework for this institutional ethnography. Then, we discuss caregiving work performed by women faculty. Next, we discuss carereceiving as additional work for women faculty. Finally, we discuss the ideal academic worker and describe how caregiving and carereceiving work are considered within that discourse. We conclude with how literature informed our study and how we plan to extend this work. Feminist Standpoint Theory We used feminist standpoint theory to focus our research questions and identify the caregiving and carereceiving work undertaken by women faculty. Feminist standpoint theory states that knowledge is socially created and participants are experts in their own experiences and are the most credible resource for their perspective (Harding, 2004; Hesse-Biber, 2017; Smith, 1987). Additionally, feminist standpoint theory focuses on “shared histories” of groups and identifying the power within them as it is socially coordinated (Collins, 1997, p. 376). Therefore, feminist standpoint theory is often part of institutional ethnographic research (Campbell & Gregor, 2002) because institutional ethnographies begin from the day-to-day work and locate the power structures or ruling relations that socially organize the work of a group of people, often marginalized such as women (Collins, 1997; Hartsock, 1981; Smith. 1987). Feminist standpoint theory posits that in order to understand marginalized peoples we must first understand the systems that create and perpetuate marginalizing behaviours (Collins, 1987). Furthermore, feminist standpoint theory connects the everyday work of the participants back to the institution (i.e. academia and the promotion and tenure process) which coordinates their work (Hartsock, 1981). We used the basis of feminist standpoint theory; understanding how knowledge is socially constructed (Harding 2004), focused on marginalized groups (Collins, 1997; Hartsock, 1981; Smith, 1987), and rooted in the everyday work of our participants to formulate our research questions. In our research, we used feminist standpoint theory as a lens to focus specifically on how women faculty’s work was coordinated and rendered invisible by institutional ruling relations. We began by identifying the work then explored the power structures or ruling relations that coordinated women academic’s work, we concluded by discussing the disjunctures between the lived experiences and the ruling relations. We began from a women’s standpoint, examining the day-to-day challenges of academic workers who have experienced difficulties navigating higher education and career advancement. We used feminist standpoint theory to identify our starting point based on the authors' lived experiences (Campbell & Gregor, 2002). However, our standpoint was not just the perspectives of the women academic workers; it also included the perception of their experiences. To examine how women’s caregiving work is understood and organized within the academy, we opened participation to all faculty members, regardless of gender. This approach allowed us to identify how caregiving is recognized, taken up, or dismissed within the broader institutional environment. It also made visible the discourses and expectations that shape caregiving work across faculty roles, while centering the experiences of women. We used the broader sample to gather data on how individuals understand the experiences of women academics, rather than limiting our data collection to women academics. By beginning with the experiences of women academics, we sought to understand how they experienced and interacted with the institution of higher education. We used everyday experiences as an entry point into the institution of academia to identify the 59 Advancing Women in Leadership Journal-Volume 44 work of women academics, and then how the institution organizes that work through texts, processes, procedures, and discourses (Smith & Griffith, 2022). We aimed to use this lens to understand the day-to-day experiences of women academic workers and how the work they do to provide and receive care in the workplace is socially organized by structures that are not immediately visible (Smith, 2005). In the following section, we begin by discussing caregiving work for women faculty to provide a background for our research. Caregiving Work for Women Faculty Research suggests that women in higher education, including faculty members, often feel pressure to bear the burden of caregiving responsibilities (Docka & Stone, 2021). For this research, we define care as support or providing for the needs of MWU, departments, students, or colleagues. Caregiving can take various forms, both outside the workplace and within (Heijstra, 2017). We use caregiving as a term to encompass work that is considered providing care and goes unrecognized or uncompensated. In higher education, caregiving work encompasses categories such as teaching and service. We extend and operationalize caregiving as care work that is often unmeasured, mainly in traditional documentation such as the promotion and tenure (PTE) dossier (Heijstra, 2017). Even for caregiving work that is ostensibly measured or tracked in a PTE dossier, women faculty are often asked to assume a higher proportion of teaching and advising as well as chairing committees, serving as undergraduate directors, and providing student mentorship without compensation or recognition (Blalock et al., 2023; Misra et al., 2011). For example, advising is often a part of the “service” component of a PTE dossier. In the dossier, a faculty member lists the number of undergraduate and graduate students they advise. However, the work of advising, and perhaps one measure of its quality, also involves the frequency and duration of time spent guiding and advising students. In this example, the number of advisees is measured for PTE purposes, but the time a faculty member spends on advising is not. The latter, for our purposes, is considered caregiving work. Altogether, research suggests that women faculty members tend to take on a larger proportion of caregiving work, which means, in practice, they spend additional time teaching and mentoring students, and less time on research (Misra et al., 2011), with little reward (Blalock et al., 2023; Heijstra, 2017). Women faculty often report that they take on caregiving work because they feel it is vital to the success of their students and the institution (Blalock et al., 2023; Misra et al., 2011), to be a team player, or to align with expectations of their peers. However, faculty report that caregiving work is seen as expected, so it is not work that positively impacts PTE (Barrett & Barrett, 2011; Fitzgerald, 2012). Through this study, we aimed to identify the coordination and definitions of caregiving work to expand on the gendered organization (Acker, 1990; Docka & Stone, 2021; Toffoletti & Starr, 2016). Specifically, we were interested in understanding the work related to both providing care and the work women faculty do to receive care. Care-receiving Work for Women Faculty Research suggests that women faculty members are burdened with additional work within the gendered academic workforce (Docka & Stone, 2021). Additional work is demonstrated in our definition of carereceiving work, when faculty seek out support systems as methods to receive care that do not naturally form with colleagues (Block & Tietjen-Smith, 2016) and are often unrecognized. Carereceiving would include finding and vetting mentors, creating a support system of peers, and making friends within the campus and local community. Although not traditionally conceptualized as carereceiving, mentorship has been described as a key component of success and belonging for women faculty (Gibson, 2006). However, women faculty members are often advised to find their mentors while simultaneously being told that mentorship is key to their success (Blood et al., 2012; Gibson, 2006). Through mentorship, women faculty can receive guidance, support, and advocacy, which helps them overcome challenges and foster professional growth (Gibson, 2004, 2006; Gill, 2009). Early career mentor relationships in academia can positively impact “promotion, grant applications and awards, article presentations, and professional society involvements” (Voytko et al., 2012, p. 1048). However, the perception that a mentor should share identities with the mentee can expand the barriers that women faculty face in receiving mentorship when programs are formed naturally rather than systemically supported. These barriers are only exacerbated for women of color, non-binary, and LGBTQ (Blood et al., 2012; Zambrana, 2019). Additionally, women faculty members have less access to resources for personal growth (Lund & Tienari, 2018). The personal groups that develop often occur outside working hours, making them inaccessible to already marginalized groups (Blalock et al., 2023; Toffoletti & Starr, 2016; Zambrana, 2019). Women faculty face pressure to defer their own needs to meet workplace gendered expectations (Acker, 1990; Howell et al., 2017). Smith et al. (2000) and Voytko et al. (2018) have demonstrated that faculty who receive care in social groups or mentorship typically experience greater job success, higher salaries, and more career opportunities. Although research has made these advantages clear, women faculty often do not reap the rewards unless they seek out care external to the workplace. Thus, women faculty are burdened by systemic barriers to their support and ultimately their success, further perpetuating a gendered workplace. Ideal Woman Academic Worker The expectations of women faculty to provide care and find it for themselves embody the traits of a discourse of an ideal woman academic worker, which stems from Acker’s (1990) theory on gendered work and organizations. Her theory of the ideal worker is based on a masculine, unencumbered body that 60 Advancing Women in Leadership Journal-Volume 44 has no outside commitments (Acker, 1990; 2006). Evidence of the gendered worker is in job descriptions, where the ideal candidate is presented as neutral but based on gendered norms that restrict who meets the position requirements (Acker, 1990; 2006). We associate those traits within academia, and the research of Lund and Tienari (2018) attributes caregiving behaviors to the woman academic worker. Indeed, the ideal academic worker is passionate and values individualized pursuits (Lund & Tienari, 2018). Prioritizing individuality devalues the work of caring for colleagues and fostering community (Fotaki, 2013; Gill, 2009). Additionally, the ideal academic worker is someone who stands alone (Acker, 1990; Lund & Tienari, 2018), dismissing carereceiving work of women faculty as they seek communities of support such as mentorship or social validation (Rowlands, 2017). The discourse of the ideal academic worker valuing individuality (Lund & Tienari, 2018) conflicts with the research on the value of mentorship and creating support networks (Blood et al., 2012), which are critical components of the ideal academic worker. The discourse of the ideal academic worker establishes the expectation that to be accepted in academia, one must comply with the gendered norms established by the institution (Blalock et al.; Rowlands, 2017). We aim to identify the disjuncture between the discourses of the ideal academic worker and the ideal woman academic worker by exploring the work of women faculty. Our analysis of focus group data led to the identification and analysis of policies, practices, and procedures at MWU, as well as the discourse of the ideal woman academic worker that coordinated women faculty’s work. The focus group data analyzed were part of a larger study exploring the experiences of women faculty at MWU. Methods This project was not conceptualized as an institutional ethnography from the outset. However, after the data collection we (Emily Johnson, Cailin Shovkoplyas, Laura Parson, and Fredricka Saunders) approached our data analysis by making our research an institutional ethnographic inquiry to understand and make recommendations that were focused on academia as an institution from the standpoint of women academic workers. We used feminist standpoint theory as a lens to approach this institutional ethnographic research. We began from the experiences of the individual, then proceeded to identify the disjunctures between their lived experience and the methods that coordinated women faculty’s caregiving and carereceiving work. Feminist standpoint theory guided our research and analysis as we sought to uncover the unseen or unrecognized work (Smith, 1987, 2005). Feminist standpoint theory is often part of institutional ethnographic research, as the data is not limited to the participants' experience, but also to how their experiences or work are socially organized (Campbell & Gregor, 2006). Institutional ethnography (IE) begins with a problematic experience or challenge, often one that is felt or noticed by the researcher (Campbell & Gregor, 2006; Smith, 1987). The research stems from personal experience. For the present study, Laura Parson, Lisa Arnold, and Rajani Ganesh Pillai are women-identifying faculty members who have undergone the tenure process and experienced the pressures associated with caregiving. Laura, Lisa, and Rajani balanced accepting work outside of the PTE dossier that would help and support their colleagues or students with the work that was associated with the PTE process and would act as evidence for their tenure. While not a faculty member, Emily Johnson has felt pressure to complete additional caregiving tasks, such as accepting roles as a mentor without compensation or a managerial title, assisting in onboarding, and being the person coworkers would turn to for questions and help. Although Emily was not part of the PTE process, they related their caregiving work to her annual review process. She felt that they were unable to receive recognition for completing work that exceeded their job requirements and the items outlined in their annual review. The documentation and review process limited the work for which Emily was compensated, as her supervisor noted that the care work of supporting colleagues and onboarding new hires was something she chose to complete and naturally excelled at. Institutional ethnography begins with a problem, and then the research questions are designed to identify what the work entails on a day-to-day basis and how it is socially organized (Campbell & Gregor, 2004; Smith, 2005). IE research goes to a second level to identify the challenges or disjunctures between the lived experience (work) and the institutional structures that coordinate the work, such as national policy, organizational procedures, or discourses (Campbell & Gregor, 2004; Smith, 1987). Informed by research on caregiving, carereceiving, and the ideal academic worker, we explored the experiences of women faculty at MWU, framed within feminist standpoint theory. The research questions that guided our data analysis sought to describe the work of women faculty to identify institutional policies, practices, procedures, and discourses that coordinated that work: 1. What are the processes, policies, practices, and procedures that coordinate caregiving work for women faculty? 2. What are the processes, policies, practices, and procedures that coordinate carereceiving work for women faculty? To understand how women faculty’s work was coordinated, we leveraged focus group data to identify discourses, policies, procedures, and practices at MWU through an analytic approach typical of an IE. Context This research evolved from an internal report completed by the institution’s Women Faculty Advancement Commission (WFAC – pseudonym) to understand the experiences of women faculty members and the impact of the institution’s Cultivate (pseudonym) initiative. To address systemic and institutional barriers to women’s advancement in higher education, the National Science Foundation’s (NSF) (2020 Cultivate pushes universities to address elements of organizational structure and culture that adversely affect women (NSF, 2020). Cultivate is an 61 Advancing Women in Leadership Journal-Volume 44 initiative focused on women faculty charged with creating and refining efforts to address obstacles, particularly for women in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM). Andreasen et al. (2017) attribute the increase in women hired in higher education to programs like Cultivate at various universities. The WFAC collected data from the focus groups and completed a report, which we (Emily, Cailin, and Fredricka) received after our analysis. Our findings offer valuable insights into the institutional context that contributes to a broader understanding of caregiving and receiving work. This research is a component of broader research related to caregiving and work-life balance from the standpoint of women faculty. We found that women faculty felt pressure to accept work that was unrecognized by the formalized Promotion and tenure evaluation policies. This pressure perpetuated work environments where women faculty had to choose between their careers, their lives outside of work, or their students (Saunders et al., 2025). Participants MWU faculty received an email via the faculty listserv with information about the focus groups and a link to a survey, administered via Qualtrics, where they could indicate interest. Participants were given the option to participate in mixed-gender or single-gender focus groups; however, all four groups were single-gender. A total of 23 faculty members participated in the event. Although we sought to understand the standpoint of women faculty members, we spoke to those who identified as women and men to understand how women faculty members’ work and challenges were organized at MWU. We collected entry-level data through focus groups (three women-identifying faculty members and one men-identifying faculty member) with faculty members at MWU to understand the challenges facing women faculty. This informed the document analysis we conducted on MWU policies at the broadest University level. We sought to understand how the challenges described were created and continued. Data Collection We had two phases of data collection, as is typical of an IE. We began with hour-long semi-structured focus groups of MWU faculty to allow for space for follow-up questions (Rubin & Rubin, 2011). We leveraged focus groups to collect data on how faculty understood the coordination of academic workers' work (Campbell & Gregor, 2002). Our focus group protocol was developed to understand our standpoint, which focused on women academics’ experiences. A small subgroup of focus group facilitators drafted the initial focus group protocol, which was then reviewed by the WFAC committee, revised, and approved. The focus group questions were developed specifically for this data collection to identify issues that face women faculty and document changes or improvements in the campus climate for different groups. After the protocol was approved by the WFAC and the MWU’s IRB board, we began conducting focus groups. First, participants were invited to meet their selected focus group in a central location on campus, with two facilitators present for each meeting. Upon arrival, participants selected a nametag with a number, which they affixed to their clothes for the duration of the meeting. The room contained approximately 10 chairs arranged in a circle, facing each other, and participants could choose their preferred seating position within the circle. As participants arrived, they were provided with a consent document. The facilitators verbally instructed them that by remaining in the room, they were providing consent to participate in the study, but they could leave or withdraw at any time. As participants waited for everyone to arrive, they were asked to complete a demographic questionnaire by hand which included optional questions related to gender, orientation, ethnicity, and dis/ability. Once all participants had arrived and completed the questionnaire, one of the facilitators turned on the recording device, which was placed on a chair within the circle. For the duration of the focus group, participants were instructed to refer to each other by the number on their nametags, rather than by name, to protect their anonymity. When the facilitators were ready to begin, they provided a brief explanation of WFAC, its purpose, and the objectives of the focus group. After inviting questions, the facilitators proceeded to ask a series of questions to prompt discussion among focus group members listed in Table 1. Table 1 Focus Group Questions and Facilitation Protocol At the beginning of each focus group, facilitators will explain to the group who the WFAC (pseudonym) is and its purpose. Participants will be given numbers by which to refer to themselves and others in the group. Informed consent will be obtained. Main Question Follow-up What has been your previous experience with or knowledge of WFAC (pseudonym) and/or policies it has forwarded? What would be an ideal situation that would facilitate your career? What does your situation look like currently? What might help you in achieving the ideal situation/career goals? What barriers or challenges have you faced? Do you think these experiences are similar to other people that you know of? Could it be different for anyone else? What about someone with a different gender identification? What is/has been/was your experience like going through the onboarding and/or promotion process? Senior faculty: What has been your experience in preparing for/having access to leadership positions on campus? Do you think these experiences are similar to other people that you know of? Could it be different for anyone else? What about someone with a different gender identification? Tell us about formal or informal structures on Do you think these experiences are similar to other people that you know of? Could it be different for anyone else? What about someone 62 Advancing Women in Leadership Journal-Volume 44 campus that have supported you in your career. with a different gender identification? What has been your experience with specific MWU (pseudonym) policies related to gender equity? What suggestions do you have for policies that the WFAC (pseudonym) might address? Next, our second phase of data collection was informed by the analysis of the focus group transcriptions. After identifying the caregiving and care-receiving work for women academic workers, we sought to understand how this work was coordinated through texts such as the PTE policy in the university employee manual, as well as department-specific requirements that exceeded university standards. We also explored the focus group data to identify what it meant to be a women faculty member, contributing to the discourse of an ideal woman academic worker. Both phases of data collection were critical to the IE method and answering our research questions around the caregiving and receiving work that women faculty accepted, then identified how that work is organized and where women faculty feel that work is their responsibility. Data Analysis In alignment with the process of institutional ethnography, our analysis focused on responding to our research questions and tracing how work was coordinated. We began by identifying caregiving and receiving work for women faculty. Next, we read the focus group data and identified the work being done by women faculty related to caregiving and carereceiving. For example, “asking us what we could use for mentoring,” would include the work of: “reflecting on what is needed,” describing needs, “collaborating with colleagues,” and “identifying the potential ideal outcomes.” Instead of identifying themes or categorical codes often seen in qualitative research, we sought to identify the ruling relations or texts that organized the experiences or work of women academics (Campbell & Gregor, 2002; Smith, 2005). By identifying the ruling relations, we were able to provide insights into how institutional and organizational structures, such as the State Board of Higher Education, the MWU website, policy manuals, and the discourse of the ideal woman academic worker, shape the work. Throughout this process, we identified the work, how it was coordinated, and noted disjunctures or conflicts between the lived experiences of women academics and the ruling relations. Trustworthiness and Validity To ensure confidentiality, participants were referred to by an assigned number for data collection (e.g., 201, 302), we used pseudonyms in the findings, and the university was renamed MWU. Each of the quotes in the findings was limited to ensure anonymity. Recognizing the internal validity of the study, it is essential to note that the sample was not randomly selected. Lisa and Rajani recruited faculty members through convenience sampling, based on self-selection and time commitment, to participate. 63 Advancing Women in Leadership Journal-Volume 44 Figure 1 Researcher Positionality 64 Advancing Women in Leadership Journal-Volume 44 Limitations As an institutional ethnography, the research is intended and expected to be generalized across the broader population of women faculty. We were limited by not having access to participants after the focus groups had concluded. This research, although limited to a specific university, highlights the challenges associated with being a woman faculty member. Through this study, we focused on how work is accomplished and assigned, both in formal policies and in the perception of cultural norms within the organization. We, the researchers (Figure 1), are critical elements of the research itself, as we tried to understand the group experiencing marginalization. The findings of this study aim to contribute to the understanding of caregiving and carereceiving work for women faculty and the discourse on the ideal woman academic worker. Findings Our analysis of the focus group data and institutional policies that coordinate the work of women suggests a disjuncture between the care work that women faculty provide for students and colleagues and the MWU policies regarding campus community contributions (Figure 2). First, we describe the caregiving work of women faculty members, including academic advising, serving on committees, and assisting colleagues. Second, we describe the carereceiving work of women faculty, which was primarily related to creating communities of support and finding mentors. We conclude by relating mentorship to the discourse of the ideal woman academic worker. Caregiving For this study, we defined caregiving as work that falls within the service or teaching category in the PTE dossier but has elements that are often unmeasured, such as academic advising, serving on committees, and providing support to colleagues. We discuss each element of caregiving work by beginning with the policy, practice, procedure, or discourse that coordinates that work, and then describe how that work is implemented in practice. Finally, we conclude each section by discussing how or why this creates challenges (disjunctures) for women faculty. Academic Advising Advising is required by the MWU PTE policy within the category of service; however, it is unclear how much advising fulfills the policy requirement. We note the disjuncture between the work women faculty saw from their colleagues and their perception of the PTE policy service section coordinating advising. For some, this was based on their contract, for others, student advising occurred less formally, where faculty would either be assigned or volunteered to advise students. The ambiguity in the service policy regarding how much advising was enough conflicted with the desire of women faculty to help students and provide care, as they accepted or declined work. For example, Sibyl described her experience as a faculty member with the most student advisees in her department because she was good at it. However, others in her department did not accept advising meetings because they do not offer advising. I have one of the highest advising rates, as we don't have professional advisors in our department. I'm one of the few, and I have the highest number of advising appointments, because I do it well. And our other faculty have actually told our Department Chair “I, I don’t advise.” And they're okay with that. Sibyl felt that she needed to prioritize providing care above her perception of the MWU PTE service policy advising requirements. The conflict in priorities led to her having the most advising appointments in her department. This disjuncture created an imbalance between her role functions of service, research, and teaching. She needed to choose between doing what she felt was expected and building PTE evidence. Likewise, Helen also noted the work of advising but related to graduate students. She felt she had to turn away students asking for help when their advisor was not meeting their needs. Helen’s choice to maintain boundaries by not accepting the additional work left her feeling disheartened because she knew the students needed care but was unable to provide it. It's really frustrating when, when you are a faculty member, and there is a graduate student coming to you because your colleague isn't doing what they're supposed to be doing. … And it's, it's really just kind of, yeah, just disheartening to be like, like, I wish I could be stronger advocate. But it's either that taking on that service work, or that teaching. Helen’s choice to decline the additional work of advising graduate students conflicted with her perception of what was expected in the MWU PTE service policy and her desire to help students. The MWU PTE policy described service work as, “contributing to the welfare of the department, college, or university.” However, the lack of clarity on how much advising is evidence for PTE created the disjuncture between the expected work of faculty and participants’ experience. Like advising, serving on graduate student committees is work outlined in the PTE service policy that does not have clear metrics. In the next section, we discuss committee responsibilities as caregiving work. Serving on Committees PTE policy ambiguity created a disjuncture for women faculty, because it was unclear what level of service was required to meet contractual requirements. The way work was defined by participants aligned with PTE policies but conflicted with the goals on the MWU website to “create an equitable environment” that is supportive of the advancement of women faculty. This created more work for women faculty, because they felt pressured to accept committee work to contribute to department community, yet this work was not counted as evidence toward promotion and tenure. 65 Advancing Women in Leadership Journal-Volume 44 For example, Sam noted that women faculty in his department were overburdened with committee work. His perception was that his department diversifies the committees to align with the university’s diversity efforts. However, this procedure created an unequal division of work for women faculty. I have noticed that there's a tendency when my female colleagues kind of reach a certain level, that they're super kind of weighed down with committee work that, you know. Especially kind of, like, committees that require senior faculty, you know, there's, there’s not as many, kind of, women in the pipeline. And so, the women who do reach full professor end up getting kind of, you know, three, four, or five committee assignments. Sam described a workspace where women faculty were overburdened with caregiving work serving on committees and accepting that work in place of their colleagues. Stella’s experience was similar, she described the supporting students as tasks that women faculty felt would not be completed if they did not do it themselves. Likewise, Stella shared that in her department where individuals, she estimated mostly tenured, had the autonomy to refer to their contract. Some faculty completed only the compensated work, leaving a gap, noted by Stella, in student guidance and support. It’s usually women, um, or Senior Lectures or other faculty who, sort of, make up a lot of that other, like, nebulous labor that clearly makes the department go. It makes, it makes our Graduate Programs like produce graduates. Like, we do that work… While we have a couple of people who are just like, “Not my job. Where does it say in the bylaws that I have to do this?” So, then they just don’t have to do it. But then there’s no punishment for that person in any way. And then there is no real reward on the other side, right? There was no deterrent for faculty to refuse work viewed as outside their contract, according to Stella, nor was there recognition or reward for completing the additional caregiving work. The policies at MWU did not define the allowance to refuse additional responsibilities nor provide guidance on rewarding those who accept the caregiving work above and beyond what was required by departmental policy. The disjuncture between the faculty PTE policy related to service, contributing to the campus community, and building evidence for a PTE dossier, and faculty practices created alternate realities for women faculty if they chose to prioritize perceived expectations or MWU policies. Additionally, Helen described her desire to be a team player as a new faculty member, feeling pressure to support students and step in. She noted that it was clear which faculty members did the work. I’m a new colleague, you know, I’m trying to, I want to be a team player. I want to help our students and, like, this is the attitude this person has. And, and, you know, and you can tell we have a list that’s not always updated, but like, of who’s working, you know, with which students. And it’s glaringly obvious the people who step in, you know, and want to support the students. And those who don’t. Helen felt that this pressure left many women faculty members feeling undervalued, because they do the work above and beyond departmental practices. MWU PTE policies were written to enable individuals to build a case for how they meet PTE expectations. The vague nature provides little guidance on what meets requirements and how a faculty’s work should be measured. The lack of clarity creates a disjuncture for women faculty members trying to be team players without recognition for the unequal workloads they face in caring for students. In the next section, we discuss care work for women faculty as they feel pressure to care for their coworkers above and beyond their students’ needs. Caring for Colleagues Students were not the only group that faculty described as needing care; colleagues were also recipients of the caregiving work of women faculty. MWU policy manual stated expectations for faculty to create a better campus community, conceptually valuing collaborative work. This conflicted with practices that valued individuality. Caring for colleagues and contributing to the campus community created a disjuncture between an ideal academic and MWU policy. With this conflict between perceived expectations and policy, women faculty were torn between what they observed and what they felt they should be doing. For example, according to Meryl, contributing to the campus community was not outlined or reflected in her annual evaluations, which were focused on teaching, research, and service, creating a disjuncture between PTE practices and her contract. Seems like there should be some component of this annual evaluation that really gets to the part of fostering, because the contract, when you get hired, at least the contracts that I have, uh, the letters that I have actually saved, you are expected to contribute to a positive work environment. Meryl’s experience highlights a conflict between the practice of annual evaluations and her formal contract. She felt that there could be more support from MWU to push for behavior that created collegiality. Providing care for colleagues was also described as knowing and sharing resources for faculty and their students. For faculty to create a community of collaboration and care, women faculty needed resources and methods to share information. Several women faculty described the work of locating and validating links and resources for incoming faculty and staff. This practice was one they chose to undertake in addition to their formally 66 Advancing Women in Leadership Journal-Volume 44 coordinated work, which conflicted with the outlined expectations in the PTE policy, devoting time to research, service, and teaching. The work related to caregiving, such as advising, serving on committees, and helping colleagues, was in addition to contractual responsibilities by women faculty, leading to an overload of work. Women faculty then faced the challenge of either caring for students and colleagues or being labeled as someone who did not contribute to a positive work environment, focusing only on evidence for their PTE dossier. The time women faculty members spent completing additional uncompensated work to care for others ultimately took time away from efforts to advance their careers or care for themselves. In the following section, we discuss the expectations for women faculty to build and create a community while navigating the barriers to finding support and receiving care. Carereceiving In response to our second research question, we identified the career-receiving work of women faculty. We define carereceiving as work related to finding and feeling support. The conflict between experiences and the perception of MWU’s employee policy manual and PTE guidelines emerged as participants described their experience and what they felt they needed. Women faculty described the challenges to receiving care by building personal communities of support, finding, and maintaining mentors. We discuss these components of carereceiving work, beginning with the policy, practice, procedure, or discourse that coordinates this work. We then provide examples of the work in practice. We conclude by describing how or why this creates a disjuncture (challenge) for women faculty. Communities of Support There were departmental practices of creating support networks, such as running a club or naturally forming groups of individuals with similar backgrounds. However, not being a formal component of MWU policy resulted in the programming lacking sustainability. Work to create and maintain communities of support created additional challenges for women faculty as they sought care. The work of locating colleagues willing to participate and dedicating time to building communities of support was viewed as social. However, it was not seen as contributing to the campus community, rendering it invisible. This created the disjuncture between what the faculty felt was needed and the support from MWU. For example, Anita described informal practices to create communities of support. When she first arrived at MWU, there was a running club for women, and she found a support system she could lean on and connect with, both in the office and outside of it. I'll speak from my own department, where we have a lot of informal things. Where we, at least when I first arrived, we would gather, all the women would gather, and some of us would go running, for example, you know every Wednesday, you know, the women would run. …it was just a way to build community. And just, people that you could talk to and lean on, right? Because that's often the thing you need. Anita described the work and effort that went into creating a community that brought people together, where she and her colleagues had people they could turn to for help and support. However, the practices of MWU that created a community of support were not sustainable through institutional changes. Additionally, Zoe described finding friendships and creating connections as work she had to do as a new member of the community. She felt lucky to be part of a large wave of incoming hires, but noted the additional work required to create a community of support. So, like I said, I think I lucked out incoming when I did. Because there was this big wave of hiring, at least in our college, and a lot of folks coming from outside. And so, we've been able to form that community. Without that, I probably wouldn't still be here, right. But it's, it hasn't been necessarily about research. It's been about the social, and then, like, I have a number of people that I could call. Zoe found community in her cohort; however, this was work in addition to her role. The work of finding relationships and sustaining them to form that community aligned with the service aspect of the MWU policy. However, that work was considered social rather than part of contributing to the campus climate, creating a disjuncture between work seen as evidence for the PTE dossier and the policy itself. Gwen, a woman faculty member of MWU, described the formation of mentor networks as a challenge for her as a woman. The networks naturally formed for the majority groups, white men, but for minorities such as women, particularly women of color, they needed to reallocate time from other aspects of their roles to prioritize carereceiving work. Gwen described the choice between the work of building her PTE dossier and finding and forming those networks. In a lot of departments there are, already exists, a network for white men. So, they don’t have to spend the energy creating one. But for women and people of color, they have to take energy and time away from other things to find that support network. It doesn't exist in my unit either. And I think you're right by that everybody's really busy, and then, like, you're not rewarded for forming those networks. Um, in the PT & E process, it's just, like, you need it. And so, you do it, or you try to do it, but at the sacrifice of your other things that are important to your promotion and tenure process, Gwen felt she needed to look elsewhere for support networks since MWU did not have a mentorship program in place, and it 67 Advancing Women in Leadership Journal-Volume 44 would not develop without structure. The MWU PTE policy recognized contributing to the campus community as service work; however, this conflicted with the experiences of women faculty, as the work they were doing to create communities of support was not reflected in their PTE dossier. Next, we discuss the work women faculty did to find mentorship as a specific method for receiving care and the barriers to building mentor relationships. Seeking Mentorship Participants described mentorship as a need; however, MWU did not have procedures on how to mentor or incentives to become mentors for women faculty. This conflict perpetuated the challenge faced by women faculty members in finding, vetting, and securing quality mentors to guide them. Indeed, there was a challenge for women faculty to find mentors who shared their identities. For example, Elaine described the work of finding mentors as searching for individuals who held similar roles to her own. MWU practices did not support the work of finding a mentor. As a result, it became invisible work. Elaine described the process of seeking mentorship outside the department as a challenge. There was no like plan, mentorship part of me starting. And I was the first Professor of Practice in the department, and the only Professor of Practice. And, so I had to, like, seek out and meet people across campus to like, meet other Professors of Practice … And now, very recently, in the last few months, they've started to go, “Oh, maybe we should mentor these newer faculty members,” because there's four of us now. Like, half the department is new. And, uh, so, now they're starting some mentoring things and asking what we could, you know, use to help, help us proceed in all this kind of stuff. The department has since added a mentorship program, and leadership came to her and her colleagues, asking them what they needed and how the department could help them. This created more work for Elaine and her colleagues as they sought to provide recommendations. In contrast, Sam, a faculty member, described an informal practice where the Associate Dean in his department organized workshops for newer faculty to connect and learn the ways of working at MWU. Sam noted his experience may not have been the same for women faculty in his department. Sam also described the value of being mentored through a practice third-year review by the department chair and colleagues. This prepared him for his next step in the PTE process. Sam’s work was visible and recognized within the department's practices, particularly through his PTE discussions. The program and his colleagues valued the work he did to receive care. Sam’s experience was positive, but as he noted, this conflicts with his observations of women faculty. Additionally, Helen shared that she received mentorship but wanted to expand outside her department. She learned on her own how to identify mentors. The chair of Helen’s department gave her a gift card and told her to connect with someone outside of the department for coffee. For Helen, there was additional work to obtain mentorship, forcing her to choose where to focus. She could keep her current pace or take time to identify someone in another area with whom she could connect. This challenge led her to desire a formal mentorship practice within MWU, where faculty could receive care that aligns with the policy manual for PTE, related to contributing to the campus community and recognizing the work faculty do to create mentorship networks. Mentorship as a Trait of the Ideal Woman Academic Worker. Through our data analysis, we identified descriptions of work related to what women faculty felt they needed to be successful in their roles. The ambiguity in the MWU PTE policy determining service created space for mentorship to be recognized. Though some participants felt that this was an opportunity, this conflicted with MWU PTE review practices. Participants consistently expressed a desire to have a mentor, with some correlating mentorship with career progression. Women faculty consistently shared that having mentors share their identities was needed and should be part of the evaluation for PTE. Our analysis suggests that having a mentor is a characteristic of an ideal academic woman. For example, Bernadette described mentorship as something that is needed throughout a faculty member’s career. She noted that it was beneficial early on, as new members learn the ropes and access helpful resources. Her commentary suggested that mentorship needed to be developed, presenting a challenge to create a comprehensive system within MWU that would meet the needs of all. Additionally, Meryl noted that MWU did not have a culture of mentorship. She described PTE policy and noted the lack of verbiage related to mentorship. Her experience was that the traditional method of providing evidence to support the service section of her PTE dossier was through classroom evaluations provided by students or colleagues. And creating that culture because the evaluations on an annual basis are teaching, research, and service. There is nothing in there for like collegiality, mentorship, a mentorship could, I mean, like, you could start putting that into service, but I think the traditional way of evaluating those is, you know, classroom…, because the contract, when you get hired, at least the contracts that I have… you are expected to contribute to a positive work environment. Meryl drew attention to her belief that mentorship could directly contribute to meeting the expectation of fostering a positive work environment, as noted in the MWU faculty policy manual. Her experience was that mentorship was not evidence of service, presenting a disjuncture between recognizing mentorship and the ideal woman academic worker’s need for a mentor. 68 Advancing Women in Leadership Journal-Volume 44 Lastly, Maggie described mentoring as a critical component of what was missing when asked about her expectations for the ideal work environment. She noted that mentoring was critical to career progression, stating, “Mentoring what was, has been missing…there was no, no one mentoring to, to kind of, mentoring is so important to, um, for moving, moving higher.” Maggie’s need for a mentor reinforced the concept that having a mentor was a critical trait in the discourse of the ideal academic woman. Meryl and Bernadette also called out this trait as critical. Being an ideal academic woman, someone who has a mentor, conflicts with the policies related to PTE, as women faculty provide evidence for their dossiers while meeting their expectations. Table 2 Findings Matrix Our findings, highlighted in Table 2, outline the challenges that women faculty face and how their work is coordinated, which creates the disjunctures or differences between the ruling relations and the work that happens day-to-day. Women faculty consistently felt pressure to accept work that provided care for students and supported their colleagues, while navigating the challenge of finding the same support for themselves. Participants felt that communities of support and mentorship were critical for advancement, but were not naturally forming for women faculty. We attribute the expectation of having a mentor as part of the discourse on the ideal academic woman worker. We found that women faculty members were expected to take on invisible work beyond their contracted hours to meet the expectations of their colleagues, PTE committees, and the ideal woman academic worker. In the following section, we discuss the implications of our findings and provide recommendations to improve the experiences of women faculty members. Discussion In our study, participants experienced additional invisible workloads caring for those around them, students and colleagues. The actions of providing care through the mandated elements of the MWU PTE policies included academic advising, chairing and serving on committees, and creating a positive work environment. Women faculty members did not have a support system in place for care and development, which hindered their ability to navigate the pressure of taking on caregiving roles and working within higher education. The ambiguity in the service section of the promotion, tenure, and evaluation process did not provide clearly defined incentives or guidelines for serving as a mentor or seeking mentorship at a professional level. Though mentorship may be able to fit beneath the evidence portion of the service section describing, “contributions to fostering a campus climate that supports and respects faculty, staff, and students who have diverse cultures, backgrounds, and points of view,” it was not described as something participants cited as part of their PTE dossier. The absence of mentor networks or support systems left women faculty feeling isolated and alone. The discourse of being an ideal woman academic worker conflicted with policy and practices within the day-to-day work of women faculty. Using IE as a method, we identified a disjuncture between unmeasured policy requirements and the ideal academic worker. Then, we describe the expectations for women faculty seeking care without institutional incentives. We conclude by discussing the ideal academic woman worker as someone with a mentor. Unmeasured Requirements The work of women faculty, as they advise and care for students, is devalued by the disjuncture between the discourse of the ideal academic worker (Blalock et al., 2023; Howell et al., 2017; Lund & Tienari, 2018) and the PTE policy related to service and teaching. Without the formal measurement and value attributed to both the quality and quantity of advising or graduate committee service, the workload fell on women faculty. This research reinforces the work of Lund & Tienari (2019), who suggest that the ideal academic worker should be passionate but distanced from students, able to stand alone and take on necessary work. In Sybil and Helen’s cases, the care they provided was seen as academic housework (Docka & Stone, 2021) and thus invisible work that is not valued for recognition as a part of the PTE process. Additionally, marginalized students often seek out faculty who share their identities, placing even higher caregiving workloads on women faculty of color and their allies (Docka & Stone, 2021), due to the ambiguity of the advising section in the MWU PTE policies. The MWU PTE policy defined service as “public service, service to the University, college, and department, and service to the profession.” This could be used to the advantage of women faculty, creating the space to recognize their caregiving work underneath the service requirement. However, women faculty members felt pressure to accept caregiving work that exceeded their workload, thus not receiving recognition for this work within the broad definition of the MWU policy. Expectations Without Incentives The policies of both the state and MWU conflicted with participant descriptions of the work environment. While some women faculty members experienced some mentorship, albeit short-term, others described the need to build networks of community outside of work to create connections. The SBHE and MWU PTE policies state that employees should create positive environments by providing service to students and 69 Advancing Women in Leadership Journal-Volume 44 colleagues. However, that workload ultimately became the invisible work of coordinating meetings and organizing programs, without clear incentives or guidelines on how to be an effective mentor. The trickle-down effect ended with the work being assigned to an individual rather than a role (Nichols, 2014), forcing faculty to reinvent programming through staffing adjustments. When PTE policy is the motivator for determining priorities, faculty will defer to what is listed in policy and the behavior of colleagues (Kosoko-Lasaki et al., 2006). Without precise alignment on what it means to create positive work cultures, the priority of the work being done will continue to be seen as additional work. For example, the running group that Anita appreciated or the network of women of color that Gwen noted. This conflict between highlighting women faculty’s caregiving work and the policies dictating the day-to-day work ensures the continuation of the status quo, forcing women faculty to complete additional work without recognition within their PTE discussions. Characteristics of the Ideal Woman Academic Worker Our analysis of the data suggested that women faculty faced a challenge in navigating the intersection of their identities as faculty and community members, in addition to their need for support. The standards of what is expected of faculty at MWU are not well-defined, contributing to the conflict between the work being done and what faculty felt were traits of an ideal woman academic worker. Our analysis found that women faculty members described a mentor as someone who shared their identities in terms of gender, race, or orientation, rather than someone in academia. The perceived need for mentorship and the expectation that academics should have a mentor (Ng et al., 2021) contributed to our interpretation of the ideal woman academic worker. This aligns with the work of Lund and Tienari (2018), who noted that the ideal academic is passionate and knows how to pursue their work effectively. Building on their research, we infer that the individuals who cited mentorship as critical (Blood et al., 2012; Gibson, 2006) identified it as a trait of the ideal academic woman. However, the climate at MWU did not present opportunities for women faculty to obtain mentorship, nor did it recognize its value as a component of the PTE dossier, instead treating it as an act of receiving care. Academia continues to be a workplace built for the ideal worker. Acker's (1990, 2008) work perpetuates the barriers to marginalized groups, creating mentor networks with those who share their identities. Therefore, women faculty of color face a double challenge: feeling that they need a mentor who looks like them to be successful, while finding few people who meet their qualifications. Figure 2 Recommendations Our recommendations that follow are summarized in Figure 2. We focused on our key findings regarding the challenges that affect the work of indexed women academics. First, to address the additional invisible work that women academics accept above and beyond their job definition, which creates imbalances in workloads across the faculty, we recommend adding to job descriptions. We recommend that 'mentor' and 'caring' work be defined and added to the faculty job description to highlight the importance of care work to the organization and quantify the care work involved. Second, we found that women faculty members were expected to have a mentor but were not provided with the support to locate or vet potential mentors. We recommend that the institution establish a systematic mentorship program with clearly defined expectations for what constitutes a successful mentor and mentee. The expectations should be collaboratively built with a pilot group. The pilot mentor group is a potential for future action research to assess and revise the program. Third, we found that women faculty members described feeling pressure to accept caring work to support the overall campus climate and to support their students. To address this, we recommend revising the service expectations within the PTE dossier to include recognition for time spent on advising and descriptions of the qualitative experience of advising work, rather than limiting the work to the number of advisees a faculty member has each term. Lastly, we found that women academics shared that, in addition to caring for their students, they were also under pressure to care for their colleagues and create systems of support where they were not organically formed. We recommend that the university add to the terms in the section “Fostering a campus climate that supports and respects faculty, staff, and students” to describe actions that contribute to a favorable campus climate. For example, the organization could add language that describes supporting colleagues through collaborative projects, mentor groups, and activities outside the office space that create connection and collaboration. To conclude, this study identified the methods that coordinated caregiving and carereceiving work for women faculty. The disjunctures between MWU policy, practices, and discourses of the ideal woman academic worker devalued the caregiving work of women faculty and perpetuated barriers to carereceiving work such as long-lasting mentorship and communities of support. Based on our findings, we recommend that to improve how women faculty navigate the PTE process and progress through 70 Advancing Women in Leadership Journal-Volume 44 their career in academia, recognition for caregiving and care-receiving work be included in the PTE dossier. Future research is crucial for continuing to explore the discourse of the ideal academic woman worker. First, the experiences and discourse of women faculty members and the ideal academic worker may vary based on their field. We recommend that research be continued on a larger scale, involving women faculty from various institutions, to identify the perceptions and impact of the ideal woman academic worker discourse. The long-term impact of the gendered organization is still perpetuated in the experiences of women academics today. Therefore, we recommend research seeking to identify the impacts of sustainable mentorship and carereceiving for women faculty. Our call to action is that academic institutions should recognize the value of mentor relationships and define what it means to have a mentor and be mentored. The self-reflection process could be a component of the PTE dossier, thereby highlighting the unseen work of women faculty and linking it to compensation. Thus, making caregiving work an integral component of the PTE dossier with the potential to encourage not only women faculty but all faculty to share the caregiving load and recognize the work that allows faculty to receive care. References AAUP. (2020, December 9). Data snapshot: Full-time women faculty and faculty of color. https://www.aaup.org/news/data-snapshot-full-time-wome n-faculty-and-faculty-color#.Yh0KtqvMLIU Acker, J. (1990). Hierarchies, jobs, bodies: A theory of gendered organizations. Gender & Society, 4(2), 139–158. http://www.jstor.org/stable/189609 Acker, J. (2008). Inequality regimes: Gender, class, and race in organizations. In J. Z. Spade & C. G. Valentine (Eds.), The kaleidoscope of gender: Prisms, patterns, and possibilities (2nd ed., pp. 344–355). Pine Forge Press/Sage Publications. Aiston, S. J., & Fo, C. K. (2020). The silence/ing of academic women. Gender and Education, 33(2), 138–155. https://doi.org/10.1080/09540253.2020.1716955 Andreasen, R., Doty, H. W., & Cook, L. P. (2017, June). Measuring the impact of NSF ADVANCE programming at the University of Delaware. 2017 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition. https://doi.org/10.18260/1-2--28658 Barrett, L., & Barrett, P. (2011). Women and academic workloads: Career slow lane or cul-de-sac? Higher Education, 61, 141–155. https://www.jstor.org/stable/41477812 Blalock, A. E., & Stefanese-Yates, A. (2024). Hierarchies and paradoxes: How women in non-tenure-track faculty positions experience a gendered organization. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 17(6), 856–868. https://doi.org/10.1037/dhe0000486 Blood, E. A., Ullrich, N. J., Hirshfeld-Becker, D. R., Seely, E. W., Connelly, M. T., Warfield, C. A., & Emans, S. J. (2012). Academic women faculty: Are they finding the mentoring they need? Journal of Women's Health, 21(11), 1201–1208. https://doi.org/10.1089/jwh.2012.3529 Campbell, M., & Gregor, F. (2002). Mapping social relations: A primer in doing institutional ethnography. University of Toronto Press. Collins, P. H. (1997). Comment on Hekman's" Truth and method: Feminist standpoint theory revisited": Where's the power?. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 22(2), 375-381. https://doi.org/10.1086/495162 Davis, D. R., & Maldonado, C. (2015). Shattering the glass ceiling: The leadership development of African American women in higher education. Advancing Women in Leadership Journal, 35, 48–64. https://doi.org/10.21423/awlj-v35.a125 Docka, F. D., & Stone, L. B. (2021). Twice a “housewife”: On academic precarity, “hysterical” women, faculty mental health, and service as gendered care work for the “university family” in pandemic times. Gender, Work & Organization, 28(6), 2158–2179. https://doi.org/10.1111/gwao.12723 Fitzgerald, T. (2012). Ivory basements and ivory towers. In Hard labour? Academic work and the changing landscape of higher education (Vol. 7, pp. 113–135). Emerald Group Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1108/S1479-3628(2012)0000007007 Fotaki, M. (2013). No woman is like a man (in academia): The masculine symbolic order and the unwanted female body. Organization Studies, 34(9), 1251–1275. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840613483658 Gibson, S. K. (2004). Being mentored: The experience of women faculty. Journal of Career Development, 30(3), 173–188. https://doi.org/10.1177/089484530403000301 Gibson, S. K. (2006). Mentoring of women faculty: The role of organizational politics and culture. Innovative Higher Education, 31, 63–79. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10755-006-9007-7 Gill, R. (2009). Breaking the silence: The hidden injuries of neo-liberal academia. In R. Flood & R. Gill (Eds.), Secrecy and silence in the research process: Feminist reflections (pp. 228–244). Routledge. Harding, S. G. (Ed.). (2004). The feminist standpoint theory reader: Intellectual and political controversies. Psychology Press. Hartsock, N. (1981). Fundamental Feminism: Prospect and Perspective. In Building Feminist Theory, ed. Charlotte Bunch, 32-43. Longman. Heijstra, T. M., Steinthorsdóttir, F. S., & Einarsdóttir, T. (2016). Academic career making and the double-edged role of academic housework. Gender and Education, 29(6), 764–780. https://doi.org/10.1080/09540253.2016.1171825 Hesse-Biber, S. N. (2017). The Practice of Qualitative Research: Engaging Students in the Research Process. Sage. 71 Advancing Women in Leadership Journal-Volume 44 Howell, L. P., Beckett, L. A., & Villablanca, A. C. (2017). Ideal worker and academic professional identity: Perspectives from a career flexibility educational intervention. The American Journal of Medicine, 130(9), 1117–1125. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjmed.2017.06.002 Kosoko-Lasaki, O., Sonnino, R. E., & Voytko, M. L. (2006). Mentoring for women and underrepresented minority faculty and students: Experience at two institutions of higher education. Journal of the National Medical Association, 98(9), 1449. Lund, R. (2012). Publishing to become an “ideal academic”: An institutional ethnography and a feminist critique. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 28(3), 218–228. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scaman.2012.05.003 Lund, R., & Tienari, J. (2019). Passion, care, and eros in the gendered neoliberal university. Organization, 26(1), 98–121 https://doi.org/10.1177/1350508418805283 Misra, J., Lundquist, J. H., Holmes, E., & Agiomavritis, S. (2011). The ivory ceiling of service work. Academe, 97(1), 22–26. National Science Foundation. (2020, March 6). ADVANCE: Organizational change for gender equity in STEM academic professions (ADVANCE). https://new.nsf.gov/funding/opportunities/advance-organi zational-change-gender-equity-stem Ng, J. C., Portillo, S. K., & Thomas, K. R. (2021). The rationalized myth of faculty mentoring: A critical examination of faculty experiences and institutional change. New Directions for Higher Education, 2021(193), 45–52. https://doi.org/10.1002/he.20397 Nichols, N. (2014). Youth work. University of Toronto Press. Rowlands, J. (2017). The domestic labour of academic governance and the loss of academic voice. Gender and Education, 31(7), 793–810. https://doi.org/10.1080/09540253.2017.1324132 Rubin, H. J., & Rubin, I. S. (2011). Qualitative interviewing: The art of hearing data (3rd ed.). Sage. Saunders, F. R., Parson, L. J., Johnson, E. C. S., Shovkoplyas, C. M., Arnold, L. R., & Pillai, R. G. (2025) Institutional Ethnography of Women Faculty in Higher Education: Understanding Gendered Experiences and Power Dynamics. Higher Education Politics and Economics, 11(2), 77–99. https://doi.org/10.32674/hepe.v11i2.7062 Smith, D. E. (1987). The everyday world as problematic: A feminist sociology. Northeastern University Press. Smith, D. E. (2005). Institutional ethnography: A sociology for people. Rowman Altamira. Smith, D. E., & Griffith, A. I. (2022). Simply institutional ethnography: Creating a sociology for people. University of Toronto Press. Smith, J. W., Smith, W. J., & Markham, S. E. (2000). Diversity issues in mentoring academic faculty. Journal of Career Development, 26, 251–262. https://doi.org/10.1177/089484530002600402 Toffoletti, K., & Starr, K. (2016). Women academics and work-life balance: Gendered discourses of work and care. Gender, Work & Organization, 23(5), 489–504. https://doi.org/10.1111/gwao.12133 Voytko, M. L., Barrett, N., Courtney-Smith, D., Golden, S. L., Hsu, F. C., Knovich, M. A., & Crandall, S. (2018). Positive value of a women's junior faculty mentoring program: A mentor-mentee analysis. Journal of Women's Health, 27(8), 1045–1053. https://doi.org/10.1089/jwh.2017.6661 Zambrana, R. E. (2019). Toxic ivory towers: The consequences of work stress on underrepresented minority faculty. Rutgers University Press. https://doi.org/10.36019/9780813593012 72 Advancing Women in Leadership Journal-Volume 44