Power relationships in higher education from the gender perspective : inclusion, exclusion, and resistance mechanisms
Published 2018-12-01
Keywords
- Higher education,
- Sexism,
- Study programs,
- Violence against women,
- Social inequality
How to Cite
Abstract
The general objective of the study is to understand and analyze what kind of power relations are developed in the Bolivian University. The qualitative approach was adopted that allows recreating social and symbolic interaction, assembling the voice of the actors. The sample has a non-probabilistic intentional character, having conducted a total of 80 interviews with teachers and university authorities. A semi-structured guide of in-depth interviews and observation charts has been designed for the ethnographic record. It is concluded that academic women perform differently than teachers in university management and policy. Three types of mechanisms mark their professional performance: inclusion, exclusion, and resistance, with a clear predominance of the latter. The factors that determine the functioning of these mechanisms are the androcentric organizational culture of the university, the family context, and the subjectivity of the teachers themselves. The habitus of “having to be a woman-wife-mother-professional home mistress” that configures the current ideology of women’s multifunctionality prevails consistently. In short, there is active and real power of men and another passive power of women that raises the need to make a critique of the position occupied by men and women, and of the subjective valuations that people and collectives have about power relations in the university context.
URI: http://hdl.handle.net/11298/900
DOI: http://doi.org/10.5377/entorno.v0i66.6737
Keywords: Higher education; Sexism; Study programs; Violence against women; Social inequality.
References
Bourdieu, P. (1977). La reproducción. Elementos para una teoría del sistema de enseñanza. Barcelona: Laia.
Bourdieu, P. (2008). Homo academicus. Madrid: Siglo XXI.
Bourdieu, P., & Passeron, J. C. (2001). La reproducción. Madrid: Popular.
Bourdieu, P., & Passeron, J. C. (2009). Los herederos. Los estudiantes y la cultura. Madrid: Siglo XXI.
De Barbieri, T. (1991). Los ámbitos de acción de las mujeres. Revista Mexicana de Sociología. 53(1), 203-224.
Foucault, M. (1978). Microfísica del poder. Madrid: La Piqueta.
Foucault, M. (1998). Historia de la locura. Bogotá: F.C.E.
Foucault, M. (1999). Estrategias de Poder. Obras esenciales II. Barcelona: Paidós.
Miles, B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis. Londres: SAGE.
Olesen, V. (2011). Feminist qualitative research in the millennium’s first decade. Developments, challenges, prospects (129-146). En K. Denzin, & Y. Lincoln (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of qualitative research. Los Ángeles: SAGE.
Scott, J. (1996). El género: una categoría útil para el análisis histórico. En M. Lamas (Comp.), El género: la construcción cultural de la diferencia sexual. (265- 302). México, D.F.: Universidad Autónoma de México.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (2002). Bases de la investigación cualitativa. Técnicas y procedimientos para desarrollar la teoría fundamentada. Medellín: Universidad de Antioquia.
Universidad Mayor de San Simón. (2014). Universidad en Cifras 2009. Cochabamba: Planta Gráfica de Editorial Serrano.