GLASS CEILINGS,
Glass Parasols and Australian Academic Archaeology
Claire Smith and Heather Burke
Consider this picture: You are on the ground floor of a building,
one of those modern palaces where balconied floors surround
a central atrium reaching all the way to the roof. As you gaze
upward, you can see fifteen floors of the building, all containing
the expected level of activity: people are walking, alone and in
groups, glass elevators are gliding up and down, a few people lean
on the balcony railings, admiring the beauty of the architecture.
As you continue to watch the people above, you begin to
discern a pattern. On the second and third floors, there is a mix of
people, young and old, black and white, male and female. But as
your focus moves higher, that all begins to change. By the seventh
and eighth floors, the people are considerably more homogeneous
– mostly white, and mostly male. On the uppermost floors,
minorities and women have pretty much vanished, and even
those riding the glass elevators to the rarefied air of the top floors
are nearly all white, and nearly all men (Baker et al. 2003).
Abstract
The ‘glass ceiling’ was a term coined to depict the invisible yet
impenetrable barriers met by women seeking to advance to
the uppermost levels of the corporate ladder. It is not simply
a barrier encountered by an individual, but rather applies to
particular groups of people who are kept from advancing as
a result of attitudinal and organisational biases and internal
systems that operate to the career disadvantage of women
and minorities. Within the discipline of archaeology an
interest in the status of women in the workplace was a core
facet of an emergent archaeology of gender. Much has been
accomplished since then, and in the early twenty-first century
women are a fundamental part of the archaeological social
landscape. But, despite this, have women really achieved
equity in the workplace? Or is equity something that still
needs to be pursued actively? How do women’s careers shape
up when compared to those of men? Does the metaphorical
glass ceiling exist in archaeology? Or is it simply a glass
parasol that women hold up for themselves? How far have
women come since the feminist push of the early 1990s?
Introduction
The ‘glass ceiling’ was a term coined by journalists Carol Hymowitz
and Timothy Schellhardt (1986) to depict the invisible yet
impenetrable barriers met by women seeking to advance to the
uppermost levels of the corporate ladder. Their report came at a
critical time in the struggle by women and civil rights groups for
greater representation and equity, not only in the corporate world,
but also in the workplace as a whole. The term ‘glass ceiling’ resonated
throughout the Western world, quickly becoming part of everyday
language, and, in time, was incorporated into the title of a United
States commission, the Glass Ceiling Commission (U.S. Federal
Glass Ceiling Commission 1995a, 1995b). Since the publication
Department of Archaeology, Flinders University, GPO Box 2100,
Adelaide, SA 5001, Australia
of Hymowitz and Schelhardt’s report, the metaphor of the glass
ceiling has been applied to describe any artificial barrier that limits
suitably qualified men and women of diverse ethnic backgrounds,
as well as disabled and sexual minority groups, from advancement
to management level, irrespective of their accomplishments or
merits (U.S. Glass Ceiling Commission 1995a). The glass ceiling
is not simply a barrier encountered by an individual, based on the
person’s particular skills or abilities. Rather, it applies to particular
groups of people who are kept from advancing higher because they
are members of those groups (cf. Morrison et al. 1992). This ceiling
derives from attitudinal and organisational biases and is comprised
of day-to-day practices, management and employee attitudes and
internal systems that operate to the career disadvantage of women
and minorities (Chicago Area Partnerships 1994).
The manner in which glass ceilings constitute a barrier, not
only to individuals but also to society as a whole, has been a
focus of much research in the last 20 years. Apart from equity
issues, the main concern is that glass ceilings reduce the potential
pool of leaders by discriminating against significant portions
of the population, with the detrimental economic and social
implications that arise from this. In the United States, the Civil
Rights Act 1991 established the Glass Ceiling Commission, whose
mission was to study these barriers and issue recommendations
for eliminating them, increasing the opportunities and
development experiences of women and minorities, and foster
the advancement of women and minorities to management and
decision-making positions in business (Reich 1995:4).
The notion of a glass ceiling quickly became an integral facet
of discussions concerning the status of women in the workplace.
This has been a focus of scholarly interest and public concern,
materialised in terms of specific disciplines (e.g. National Science
Foundation 1997, 2003; Nelson et al. 1995; Rosser 2004), specific
institutional environments (e.g. Collins et al. 1998; Ford and Hundt
1995; Keller 1985; Victor and Beaudry 1992; Zikmund 1988), and
the workplace as a whole (e.g. U.S. Glass Ceiling Commission
1995a, 1995b). The common threads to these discussions are the
documentation of equity issues, identifying the barriers that impede
the progress of women and minority groups and mitigating the
negative effects of disciplinary and institutional cultures.
Within the discipline of archaeology an interest in the status
of women in the workplace was a core facet of an emergent
archaeology of gender. Over the last two decades, the status of
women as archaeologists has been a focus of gender archaeology
both in Australia (e.g. Beck 1995; Beck and Balme 1994; Beck and
Head 1990; Buckley 1993; Clarke 1993; McGowan 1995; Truscott
and Smith 1993) and overseas (e.g. Diaz-Andreu and Gallego
1995; Gero 1985, 1988; Nelson et al. 1995; Wylie 1993). Much has
been accomplished since the late 1980s and early 1990s and in the
early twenty-first century women are a fundamental part of the
archaeological social landscape. Female archaeologists seem to be
everywhere: they lecture, give conference papers, publish scholarly
papers and books, receive research grants and are employed
as archaeologists. But, despite this, have women really achieved
Number 62, June 2006
13
Glass Ceilings, Glass Parasols and Australian Academic Archaeology
equity in the workplace? Or is equity something that still needs
to be pursued actively? How do women’s careers shape up when
compared to those of men? Does the metaphorical glass ceiling
exist in archaeology? Or is it simply a glass parasol that women
hold up for themselves? How far have women come since the
feminist push of the early 1990s?
This paper discusses these issues as they have manifested in
Australian academic archaeology. While our principal concern is
with the contemporary status of women in academic archaeology,
we also take an historical perspective when comparative data
are available. In order to assess the status of women we analyse
women’s and men’s employment profiles, publication rates,
success at obtaining research grants and conference participation.
We interpret the patterns that emerge in terms of the gendered
behaviours that imbue the disciplinary culture of Australian
academic archaeology and institutional cultures in the twentyfirst century.
Women in the Workplace
Concern about the persistently low numbers and status of
women in the archaeological workplace (Beck 1995; Beck and
Balme 1994; Bowdler and Clune 2000; Buckley 1993; Clarke
1993; Colley 2000; Gero 1985; McGowan 1995; Truscott and
Smith 1993), and in the academy generally (Collins et al. 1998;
Hutson 1998; Rosser 2004; Victor and Beaudry 1992), has
been evident in the literature for at least the last two decades,
especially in terms of ‘chilly climates’ that inhibit the equal
advancement of minority groups (see Wylie 1993). In order
to gain some insight into this issue as it presently stands in
Australia, we examined the profiles of Australian universities in
terms of the sex of scholars employed full-time in the academy,
and their current positions¹. This allowed us to assess the degree
of gender bias in employment, as well as the gendered aspects
of promotion that can be discerned within the academy. In this
paper the data are classified according to sex, from which we
infer gendered behaviours, though we realise that there is no
automatic correlation between the two.
Tables 1–2 show the sex of archaeologists employed fulltime in Australian universities, according to employment
classification and institution². In order to see the patterns
more clearly, these figures are amalgamated in Figures 1–3 and
presented as percentages. Figure 1 shows that women are under-
Table 1 Female archaeologists with full-time employment in Australian universities, April 2006.
Institution
Level A
Level B
Level C
Level D
Level E
Level A
Research Research Research Research Research Associate
Fellow
Fellow
Fellow
Fellow
Fellow
Lecturer
Level B
Lecturer
Level C
Level D
Level E Total
Senior Associate Professor
Lecturer Professor
Adelaide U.
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
Australian
National U.
(Archaeology &
Anthropology;
RSPAS)
4
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
6
5
Flinders U.
0
1
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
0
James Cook U.
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
2
La Trobe U.
2
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
5
Macquarie U.
(Ancient History)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
Monash U.
(Archaeology &
Ancient History;
CAIS; Australian
Indigenous
Studies;
Geography &
Environmental
Science)
1
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
3
Sydney U.
(Archaeology;
Heritage Studies)
1
0
0
0
0
0
2
1
1
1
6
U. Melbourne
(Classics &
Archaeology)
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
2
U. New England
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
U. Queensland
(Social Sciences;
A&TSIS Unit)
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
3
U. Western
Australia
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
2
U. Wollongong
(Earth &
Environmental
Sciences)
Total
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
2
12
3
1
2
0
1
5
8
3
4
39
14
Number 62, June 2006
Claire Smith and Heather Burke
represented in the academic staff of Australian universities
– despite almost two decades of concern about this issue – but
that this patterning varies according to the type of position.
While women constitute 41% of archaeologists in the academy,
a little more than the national figure of 38% for academic staff
in 2002 (Australian Vice Chancellors’ Committee 2003), this is
not evenly distributed across lecturing and research positions:
only 31% of lecturing positions in Australian universities are
held by female staff, though they hold 61% of research positions.
Surprisingly, one university (Australian National University)
does not have one woman on its permanent teaching staff,
though it has a strong female presence in the form of six female
Research Fellows and two at the level of Associate Professor. In
addition, six universities (Adelaide University, James Cook
University, Macquarie University, University of New England,
University of Queensland and Wollongong University) have
only one woman on their teaching staff. In some cases, this
is because there are low numbers overall, and in others it is
because the programme is still being established, but such
explanations are not sufficient to explain the overall patterning.
Only two of the 13 institutions included in this study, Flinders
University and the University of Western Australia, have more
female than male lecturing staff.
Figure 2 shows the percentage of archaeologists employed
full-time as lecturers in Australian universities, according to sex
and classification. At the level of Associate Lecturer (Level A),
female representation is 100% (but this is represented by only
one position, see Table 1), while at the level of Lecturer (Level
B) (represented by 18 positions) the percentage of males is 72%,
a ratio of more than two males to every female. Representation
comes closer to equal at the level of Senior Lecturer (Level
C), where women hold 44% of positions. However, there
appears to be a ceiling at this level, as few women advance to
more senior positions at a comparable rate to men: only seven
women archaeologists in Australia hold either the position of
Associate Professor (Level D) or Professor (Level E), in contrast
to 21 men. Female representation at these levels constitutes only
25% of teaching staff. It is notable that two of the four female
appointments in the category of Professor (La Trobe and Sydney)
were made in the last 18 months. While this may indicate a
change, the numbers are too small to be sure of this. Apart from
low representation at entry levels, these figures suggest that
Table 2 Male archaeologists with full-time employment in Australian universities, April 2006.
Institution
Level A
Level B
Level C
Level D
Level E
Level A
Research Research Research Research Research Associate
Fellow
Fellow
Fellow
Fellow
Fellow
Lecturer
Level B
Lecturer
Level C
Level D
Level E Total
Senior Associate Professor
Lecturer Professor
Adelaide U.
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
Australian
National U.
(Archaeology &
Anthropology;
RSPAS)
1
1
1
0
1
0
1
1
1
3
10
Flinders U.
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
2
James Cook U.
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
0
3
La Trobe U.
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
1
2
8
Macquarie U.
(Ancient History)
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
1
3
Monash U.
(Archaeology &
Ancient History;
CAIS; Australian
Indigenous
Studies;
Geography &
Environmental
Science)
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
4
Sydney U.
(Archaeology;
Heritage Studies)
2
0
0
0
0
0
2
1
1
1
7
U. Melbourne
(Classics &
Archaeology)
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
1
1
4
U. New England
1
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
3
6
U. Queensland
(Social Sciences;
A&TSIS Unit)
1
0
0
0
0
0
3
1
2
0
7
U. Western
Australia
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
U. Wollongong
(Earth &
Environmental
Sciences)
Total
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
7
2
2
0
1
0
13
10
9
12
56
Number 62, June 2006
15
Glass Ceilings, Glass Parasols and Australian Academic Archaeology
™ä
nä
nä
Çä
Çä
Èä
Èä
xä
xä
¯
£ää
™ä
¯
£ää
{ä
{ä
Îä
Îä
Óä
Óä
£ä
£ä
ä
ä
/œÌ>Êi“>iÃ
/œÌ>Ê>iÃ
iVÌÕÀiÀÃ
/œÌ>Êi“>iÃ
/œÌ>Ê>iÃ
,iÃi>ÀV…ÊiœÜÃ
/œÌ>Êi“>iÃ
/œÌ>Ê>iÃ
iÛiÊÊiVÌÕÀiÀ
>ÃÈvˆV>̈œ˜
i“>i
iÛiÊÊiVÌÕÀiÀ
iÛiÊ
ÊiVÌÕÀiÀ
iÛiÊÊiVÌÕÀiÀ
iÛiÊÊiVÌÕÀiÀ
>ÃÈvˆV>̈œ˜
/œÌ>ÊV>`i“ˆVÊ-Ì>vv
i“>i
>i
>i
Figure 1 Percentage of archaeologists employed full-time in Australian
universities, according to sex and classification, April 2006.
Figure 2 Percentage of archaeologists employed full-time as Lecturers in
Australian universities, according to sex and classification, April 2006.
female lecturers in archaeology are meeting a metaphorical glass
ceiling. This is broadly comparable to the national figure for
academic staff in 2002 (Australian Vice Chancellors’ Committee
2003). These figures indicate that, despite changes designed to
create a more level playing field, including legislative changes and
the proactive employment policies that have been developed by
many universities, women are advancing only slowly into the
senior levels.
Figure 3 shows the percentage of archaeologists employed fulltime as researchers in Australian universities, according to sex and
classification. Women have higher or equal representation with
men at all levels of Research Fellow, with the exception of that
of Senior Research Fellow (Level C) and Professorial Research
Fellow (Level E) (which is represented by a single male). It
appears that women are either (a) choosing research fellowships
over lectureships or (b) choosing research fellowships as an
option until they can obtain a lecturing post. It should be noted
that research and teaching positions are not directly equivalent.
In contrast to lectureships, which are mostly tenured or tenuretrack, fellowships are normally of fixed duration. Postdoctoral
fellowships, for example, are awarded for the researcher to
undertake a particular project, over a specific period (usually
three years). While research fellowships may appeal to women
because they offer greater flexibility than lecturing positions,
this is normally coupled with a level of insecurity, especially
at the more junior levels. One difference between lectureships
and research fellowships that may be relevant here is that while
the former are determined by committees who interview
applicants, the latter are determined on the basis of quality of
project and quality of researcher, and do not usually involve a
formal interview.
These data raise a number of critical questions. What is the
cause of this patterning? Does it apply to the general archaeological
workplace, or only to the academy? Does this situation apply to
disciplines other than archaeology? What lessons can be learnt
from this? The question of cause is a complex one, since, as all
archaeologists are aware, patterns in human behaviour are an
intersection of many factors. Certainly, a fundamental issue is the
cumulative effect of behaviours such as stereotyping, exclusion
and isolation, devaluation and trivialisation of women’s abilities
to reach their full potential. Irrespective of equity legislation, such
subtle discriminatory practices can create a ‘chilly climate’ that
inhibits professional advancement (see Wylie 1993). However,
one problem with some of this literature is that it is framed in
terms of women as victims. Such an approach is seriously limited
and could actually promote the situation, since it places the onus
for change on the perpetrators (assumed to be primarily male),
or on academic cultures (somehow intangible), rather than in the
hands of women themselves. Beyond the indices of victimhood
lie identifications of the differing values held by women and men
(including enormous variation between the sexes) and how these
values intersect with those of particular disciplinary cultures.
The patterns identified in this paper need to be addressed. In
our view, the area of greatest concern is that of entry into the
academy (Level B), where men outnumber women at a rate of
2:1. If twice as many men as women continue to be employed at
this level, the pattern will continue, and the academy will lose
the talents of skilled people. It appears that the women who do
not obtain a tenured post apply for research fellowships, take up
consulting, or move to overseas institutions. In this context, it
is notable that a significant number of young Australians have
been appointed to posts in overseas institutions over the last few
years. This is part of a wider trend in Australian society, whereby
around 5% of our population (one million out of a population of
slightly more than 20 million) live overseas (Australian Chamber
of Commerce and Industry 2004). While for some scholars a
deciding factor has been that research in areas such as feminist
theory, identity and postcolonial theory was not highly valued
within the disciplinary culture of Australian archaeology at the
time (see Meskell 2003), there is no doubt that these people are
also influenced by their perceptions of whether they are likely to
gain entry to the academy in Australia and promotion at the rate
they expect. A more general study by the Australian Chamber of
Commerce and Industry (2004:2) found that:
16
The Push factors for these young academics ranged across what
respondents saw as the relatively low status for professionals
in these areas at home and the long-term funding decline and
lack of research career opportunities in Australia. The Pull
factors for these people revolved around better salary and career
opportunities abroad.
Some of our top scholars, both female and male, are taking
their intelligence, energy and skills permanently to another
country, a disciplinary facet of the much discussed ‘brain drain’
of Australian academia (Hugo et al. 2001; Nicol 2000; Wood
2004). While this has to be evaluated against the scholars with
comparable skills who immigrate to Australia, we should be
Number 62, June 2006
Claire Smith and Heather Burke
£ää
™ä
nä
Çä
¯
Èä
xä
{ä
Îä
Óä
£ä
ä
iÛiÊÊ,iÃÊiœÜ iÛiÊÊ,iÃÊiœÜ iÛiÊ
Ê,iÃÊiœÜ iÛiÊÊ,iÃÊiœÜ iÛiÊÊ,iÃÊiœÜ
>ÃÈvˆV>̈œ˜
i“>i
>i
Figure 3 Percentage of archaeologists employed full-time as Research
Fellows in Australian universities, according to sex and classification,
April 2006.
concerned about the loss of skills to the Australian archaeological
community from the scholars who leave permanently, as
against the gain in skills that would come from them acquiring
experience and qualifications overseas and returning home.
Given the figures reported in this paper, we expect this Australian
diaspora to continue.
It is difficult to determine whether the pattern described
above holds across the archaeological workplace. To do this,
it would be necessary to assess these issues for other forms
of employment, especially those in the cultural heritage
management sector. The majority of Australian archaeologists
are employed by government heritage agencies or work as
private consultants, dealing with cultural heritage management
(Frankel 1998:27). Goulding et al. (1993) assess the perception
in Australian archaeology that women numerically dominate the
cultural heritage sector. They found that ‘while women are more
likely to be employed in cultural resource management … there
is no gender difference on this point’ (Goulding et al. 1993:228).
McGowan (1995) argued that the field of cultural heritage
management, even at the senior levels, was female dominated,
and that, because of this, the problems commonly associated with
women’s work, such as lower pay and unsatisfactory conditions,
affected cultural heritage management workers (both women
and men). Essentially, because the field was female dominated,
it was therefore perceived as ‘women’s work’. Writing in the
early 1990s, Truscott and Smith (1993:219) noted that women
comprised 60% of consultants and held 46% of government
cultural resource management positions. This suggests that, as
more women are employed, a perception arises that the sector
is ‘full of women’ – even when their numbers are only around
half, or less. It may also be related to the status of this sector
(see Clarke 1993), which is sometimes perceived as being lower
than that of the academy. In our view, a similar decrease in status
may occur in the academy should it ever reach a point where the
representation of women approaches demographic equity.
What lessons can be learnt from this? Firstly, women
archaeologists seeking lectureships within the academy, or
advancement within its ranks, should recognise they are at a
structural disadvantage. They would do well to take advantage
of the numerous publications that offer career strategies for
women (e.g. Chesterman 2000; Collins et al. 1998; Hansen 2005;
Phillips 1998; Williams 2001; Zarmati 1998). Secondly, we need
to recognise that it is an easy matter to lose ground, even when
achievements have been accomplished. For example, women
made progress towards demographic parity and occupational
equity in science, mathematics and engineering during the 1970s
and 1980s, but this slowed during the 1990s (Goodell 1998) and,
in some cases, has reversed (Vetter 1996). In terms of equity, the
critical issues for women in Australian academic archaeology are
whether those who now hold fellowships will obtain permanent
entry to the academy and, if they do, whether they will obtain
promotion at a comparable rate to their male peers. No doubt
this will be influenced by the generational shift envisaged for
Australian universities as baby boomers retire and are replaced by
Generation X-ers (see Winchester 2005). Hopefully, the greater
flexibility envisaged for university scholarly environments will
translate into greater equity.
Beyond this, it is important to consider what is happening
in other archaeological workplace sectors. Cultural heritage
management, in particular, is often marginalised (see Hope 1995),
and is overlooked in studies such as our own, partly because it
seems to be more difficult to gather data for this sector. While
there is pertinent information in a number of studies (e.g. Flood
1993; Smith 2000), a more comprehensive study is needed – one
that would consider the trends in heritage and other government
agencies, as well as in the consulting sector. While there have been
some very dedicated senior archaeologists in this sector who have
been influential in saving sites and in developing heritage policy
both in Australia and overseas, how the authority of individual
females translates to equity in the workplace is a different matter,
and one that deserves serious study in its own right.
Publications
A central aspect of status within an academic profession is
the production of high quality, peer-reviewed publications.
Within post-processual archaeology, much has been made of
the many ways in which prestige is unevenly distributed within
the academy, and the various strategies through which this
unevenness is maintained (e.g. Hutson 1998). Publication rates,
particularly in terms of the number of journal papers and books,
has been found to be one of the best predictors of rank across
the subfields of American anthropology, including archaeology
(Bradley and Dahl 1995). Obviously this is tied to wider gender
and equity issues, as there is often a circular bind arising from the
structural position of women within the academy, the consequent
opportunities available to them to publish and the subsequent rate
at which they can gain promotion and research funding. There
are a number of ways in which the nexus between publication
and status can be analysed in terms of women’s equity issues
within the academy. We have chosen to look at the overall rates
of publication according to sex, the comparative trends in these
rates across the three major journals for Australian archaeology
– Australian Archaeology (AA), Australasian Journal of Historical
Archaeology (AJHA) and Archaeology in Oceania (AO) – and the
incidence of co-authorship as one potential strategy by which
women can enhance their publication opportunities.
Figure 4 is an amalgamation of the rates of authorship for
major articles across all three archaeological journals for the
years 1984–2004 inclusive (the period when all three journals
were in production). ‘Major’ for our purposes includes all articles
within the main body of the journal (i.e. everything classed as an
‘article’ in AA or AO, and everything prior to the reviews section
of AJHA). Editorials, obituaries and conference notes have been
Number 62, June 2006
17
£ää
™ä
™ä
nä
nä
Çä
Çä
Èä
Èä
nÈ
£™
nÇ
£™
nn
£™
n™
£™
™ä
£™
™£
£™
™Ó
£™
™Î
£™
™{
£™
™x
£™
™È
£™
™Ç
£™
™n
£™
™™
Óä
ää
Óä
ä£
Óä
äÓ
Óä
äÎ
Óä
ä{
n{
£™
ä{
äÎ
Óä
äÓ
Óä
ä£
Óä
ää
Óä
™™
Óä
™n
£™
™Ç
£™
£™
™x
™È
£™
™{
£™
™Î
£™
™Ó
£™
™£
£™
™ä
£™
£™
£™
£™
£™
£™
£™
£™
n™
ä
nn
£ä
ä
nÇ
Óä
£ä
nÈ
Îä
Óä
nx
{ä
Îä
nx
xä
{ä
£™
xä
£™
¯
£ää
n{
¯
Glass Ceilings, Glass Parasols and Australian Academic Archaeology
9i>À
9i>À
>i
1˜Ž˜œÜ˜
™ä
nä
nä
Çä
Çä
Èä
Èä
™£
£™
™Ó
£™
™Î
£™
™{
£™
™x
£™
™È
£™
™Ç
£™
™n
£™
™™
Óä
ää
Óä
ä£
Óä
äÓ
Óä
äÎ
Óä
ä{
™ä
£™
n™
£™
nn
£™
£™
£™
9i>À
£™
n{
ä{
Óä
äÎ
Óä
äÓ
Óä
ä£
Óä
ää
Óä
™™
£™
™n
™Ç
£™
£™
™È
£™
™x
£™
™{
£™
™Î
£™
™Ó
£™
™£
£™
™ä
£™
£™
£™
£™
£™
£™
£™
n™
ä
nn
£ä
ä
nÇ
Óä
£ä
nÈ
Îä
Óä
nx
{ä
Îä
nÇ
xä
{ä
nÈ
xä
nx
¯
£ää
™ä
>i
i“>i
Figure 5 Publication rates in Australian Archaeology.
£ää
n{
¯
Figure 4 Publication rates across all three major journals.
£™
i“>i
£™
>i
9i>À
i“>i
>i
i“>i
Figure 6 Publication rates in Archaeology in Oceania.
Figure 7 Publication rates in the Australasian Journal of Historical
Archaeology.
excluded. There is a clear gap in the rate of publication, with
men averaging 38% more publications in comparison to women.
While secure identification of the number of unknowns may well
enhance the relative publication rates for women, even a 100%
attribution of these to female authors would not bring women’s
publication rates equal to men’s. While a comparison between
the figures in journal authorship and book authorship would
also be enlightening, the data are not as readily available. In
the United States, for example, Bradley and Dahl (1995) found
that women and men produced similar numbers of papers, but
that men produced more books than women, a pattern that
they attribute to men being more likely to direct the major
excavations that turn into book publications. While we suspect
that the impetus for book publication in Australia derives from
slightly different sources (e.g. doctoral theses as opposed to
major excavation projects), given the disparity between male and
female publication rates in journals we would expect a similar
trend to be evident in the rates for book publication.
When the rates of journal publication are compared between
the three major journals, a slightly different trend is apparent
(Figures 5-7). While publication rates for men generally exceed
that of women, the rates are not consistent across all three
journals. In these graphs, ‘female’ and ‘male’ include all articles
authored or co-authored exclusively by women and men
respectively. Unknowns have been excluded from the graphs.
The most noticeable difference is between the rates evident in
AJHA, where female authorship comes closest to matching that
of males, compared to those in AA and AO. There are six years
in which the female publication rate in AJHA either matches or
exceeds that for males, compared to only one for AA and none
for AO. While it is not clear precisely what combination of factors
this reflects, in the United States Chester et al. (1995) found
significant differences in the topics of research interest pursued
by women and men. While women demonstrated a greater
interest in education, ethnicity, class and status, men showed a
greater interest in artefact analysis, maritime archaeology and the
military. Topics such as archaeological theory and the analysis
of towns and plantations showed similar rates of interests. The
greatest disparity was in publications on gender, with women
outnumbering men at the ratio of more than 2:1 (Chester et
al. 1995:217). It is interesting to note that the slight variance in
publication rates between the three Australian journals could also
be construed as representing broadly different research interests
(i.e. pre- versus post-colonial archaeology), albeit with some
degree of overlap. When consolidated into one graph, however,
with female publication rates for each journal compared to the
total male publication rate, this trend is less clear (Figure 8). In
the two decades between 1984 and 2004 AA and AJHA have a
similar incidence of the highest number of female publications
in particular years (12 years for the former; 11 for the latter)
compared to only four years for AO. In the United States, Chester
et al. (1995) found that the success rate of men’s and women’s
publications in historical archaeology was roughly equal but that
men submitted substantially more publications than women.
Men seem to be submitting substantially more publications to
Australian journals as well.
Both publication rates and the quality of publications can
be enhanced through co-authorship. Co-authorship produces
an increase in publication rates through more than a numerical
equation. Co-authors put pressure on each other to work to
a timeline, and co-authorship can enhance the quality of a
publication through bringing to the work a different body
18
Number 62, June 2006
Claire Smith and Heather Burke
£ää
xä
™ä
{x
nä
{ä
ՓLiÀʜvÊÀ̈ViÃ
Çä
xä
{ä
Îä
Îx
Îä
Óx
Óä
Óä
£x
£ä
£ä
ä
äÎ
äÓ
ä{
Óä
Óä
ää
™™
ä£
Óä
Óä
Óä
™Ç
™n
£™
£™
£™
™x
™È
£™
™Î
™Ó
™£
™{
£™
£™
£™
£™
n™
nn
nÇ
nÈ
nx
™ä
£™
£™
£™
£™
£™
£™
£™
£™
n{
x
ä
œ‡Õ̅ʭ®
9i>À
i˜Ê­>ÊœÕÀ˜>Ã®
7œ“i˜Ê­®
7œ“i˜Ê­®
-œiÊÕ̅ʭ®
-œiÊÕ̅ʭ®
Õ̅œÀň«Ê/Þ«i
Figure 8 Publication rates for women in each journal compared to the
total male publication rate.
Figure 9 Rates of sole authorship compared to co-authorship by samesex colleagues.
xä
£ää
{x
™ä
{ä
nä
Çä
Îx
Èä
Îä
¯
Óx
xä
{ä
Óä
Îä
£x
Óä
£ä
£ä
x
™£
£™
™Ó
£™
™Î
£™
™{
£™
™x
£™
™È
£™
™Ç
£™
™n
£™
™™
Óä
ää
Óä
ä£
Óä
äÓ
Óä
äÎ
Óä
ä{
™ä
£™
n™
£™
nn
£™
nÇ
nÈ
£™
-œiÊÕ̅ʭ®
£™
n{
-œiÊÕ̅ʭ®
£™
œ‡Õ̅ʭ®Ê³Êi>`ÊÕ̅ œ‡Õ̅ʭ®Ê³Êi>`ÊÕ̅
­®
­®
nx
ä
ä
£™
ՓLiÀʜvÊÀ̈ViÃ
œ‡Õ̅ʭ®
7œ“i˜Ê­"®
£™
¯
Èä
9i>À
Õ̅œÀň«Ê/Þ«i
>i
i“>i
Figure 10 Rates of co-authorship, with female leading authors counted
as ‘female’, and male leading authors counted as ‘male’.
Figure 11 Book review rates across all three major journals. Unknowns
have been excluded from the graph.
of knowledge and skills. Some researchers (e.g. Cole and
Zuckerman 1984) have found that women and men co-author
at roughly the same rate, while others (e.g. McDowell and
Smith 1992) argue that co-authors are usually colleagues of
the same sex. One implication of this is that there will be less
co-authorship opportunities for women in disciplines that are
largely composed of men. McDowell and Smith (1992:79) argue
that a workplace environment that gives women comparable
opportunities for co-authorship to men would enhance female
productivity. In the Australian journals co-authorship is clearly
a contributory factor to successful publication rates, although
the relative percentages of female versus male co-authorship
follow a similar pattern to overall publication rates (i.e. men are
sole authors and co-authors together on a greater number of
publications than women) (Figure 9). In terms of our study, this
implies that same-sex collegial co-authorship is not a significant
factor in increasing parity between female and male publication
rates. Figure 10 amalgamates these figures with co-authored
papers according to the sex of the leading author. As is evident
from the graph, this does little to change the overall pattern.
Another test of status within the academy is being called
upon to review publications and grant proposals. The role
of the reviewer is important, since the reviewer has direct
influence on whether the project will be funded or the article
or book published. In the United States, Chester et al. (1995)
found that women were invited to write book reviews and to
review grant proposals and the publications of their peers much
less frequently than men. While comparable data on the grant
review process are not available for Australian archaeology, the
data on book review rates for women and for men show a pattern
reminiscent to that of authorship (Figure 11). Male review rates
average 40% higher than women, although, interestingly, the
disparity in this area seems to have been decreasing over time.
Peer-reviewed publication outcomes are tied into many
indicators of success in the academy, factoring heavily into
employment, promotion and grant application processes. For
women seeking advancement within the academy, publication
rates can be part of a circular ‘low status’ bind: women don’t
publish at comparable rates to men, not because their papers
won’t be accepted, but because they don’t prioritise them, or
because they don’t have confidence that their work will be
accepted. However, studies elsewhere have shown that women
and men have similar acceptance rates for publications, though
women have lower submission rates (e.g. Chester et al. 1995).
While we do not have figures for publication acceptance rates
in Australia, we suspect a similar pattern, given women’s low
application rate for research funding (see below). Irrespective, it
seems clear to us that this is an area where change lies in the
hands of women, though this could be enhanced by targeted
institutional support.
Research Funding
Since success in obtaining research funding is fundamental to
academic progress, it is important to consider women’s and men’s
relative ability to attract research funding. While the dominance
of female Research Fellows in Figure 1 suggests that women are
at least as successful as men at attracting research funds, it is
also possible that the patterning is specific to that category of
funding. It would be useful to have an analysis of archaeologists
who obtained funding from the Australian Research Council’s
(ARC) Discovery and Linkage programs, the premier funding
programs for archaeology in Australia (see http://www.arc.gov.
Number 62, June 2006
19
Glass Ceilings, Glass Parasols and Australian Academic Archaeology
au), particularly in regard to the ‘early career researcher’ category.
While such a disciplinary specific analysis is beyond the scope
of this paper, it is worthwhile considering the ARC’s records
on comparative success rates for applicants by sex. Consistent
with patterns for the previous five years, the selection report for
2005 states:
In Discovery Projects, of a total of 6,787 applicants, 1,610 (23.7%)
investigators applying were female and 5,177 (76.3%) were male.
In recommended applications, 482 (20.9%) applicants are female
and 1,825 (79.1%) are male. The overall success rate is 29.9% for
female investigators and 35.3% for male investigators (Australian
Research Council 2004).
While fewer women than men attract ARC funding,
this should be interpreted in terms of women’s unequal
representation in the academy. Since women comprised around
38% of the academic staff of Australian universities in 2002
(Australian Vice Chancellors’ Committee 2003), they should be
expected to obtain around 38% of the funding. The success rate
of 29.9% for women and of 35.3% for men is not a matter for
serious consternation in terms of women’s abilities to attract
funds, given the highly competitive nature of the ARC funding
programs and the relative positions of women and men within
university structures (Australian Vice Chancellors’ Committee
2003; Department of Education, Science and Training 2001).
The application rate of 20.9% for women, however, is a
matter of great concern, as it is almost half of what might be
expected on a proportional basis. This is consistent with patterns
in historical archaeology in the United States, where Chester et al.
(1995:215-216) found that women had lower application rates
than men, but broadly comparable success rates and, in fact,
were more successful than men at obtaining grants at local and
state levels. In Australia, it is likely that the low application rate
by women reflects the position of many women as early or midcareer researchers and their concentration in junior positions
(Australian Vice Chancellors’ Committee 2003; Department of
Education, Science and Training 2001), with the higher teaching
loads, lessened administrative support and lower publication
rates that often accompany these positions. Again a circular bind
is evident here: women don’t apply for grants partly because
of the teaching loads of junior positions and they are in junior
positions because they have not obtained the large grants that
facilitate promotion. Apart from this, the low application rate for
women should be understood in terms of women’s perceptions
of their own likelihood of success, which are shaped, both
overtly and covertly, by the disciplinary environments in which
they operate and the expectations current in wider society. In
our view, the low application rate for women suggests that some
women carry a small glass parasol above their own heads.
Conference Participation
Since one aspect of status within a profession is public
performance, it is also useful to compare women’s and men’s
behaviours at the public venues of Australian archaeology,
both seminars and conferences. In the United States Chester
et al. (1995:216) found that women do not fare well in terms
of participation in activities that are invitation only, such as
being keynote speaker or discussant for a conference session.
20
Even when assessed on a proportional basis, fewer women are
invited to participate in these roles and those who are invited
are called upon less frequently than their male counterparts.
Chester et al. (1995) attribute this pattern to conference and
session convenors wishing to draw upon people recognised as
outstanding scholars and to women having a lower status within
historical archaeology.
In Australia, the fundamental study in this regard is that
of du Cros and Smith (1993), who undertook surveys of the
characteristics of male and female questioning in discussion
sessions at the 1988, 1989 and 1990 annual conferences of the
Australian Archaeological Association. Du Cros and Smith found
that around 66% of audience questions and comments were
made by men, even though they composed only around 40%
of the audience, that men talked for around 50% longer than
women, and that women were more likely to ask questions, while
men were more likely to give opinions (du Cros and Smith 1993a:
xviii). These behaviours varied according to topic area, with
cultural heritage management having the greatest participation
from women (69%) and men dominating discussions in ‘hard
sciences’ sessions (88%), most likely reflecting areas of male and
female specialisation. Du Cros and Smith attribute these patterns
to a marginalisation of women, and this is certainly one aspect
of it. It is also true, however, that some women decide not to
engage in public debates, at least partly because such debates
can be combative in Australian archaeology, and that this also
affects many (particularly early career) men. How this pattern
affects perceptions of women’s and men’s ‘performances’ at
conferences, and public understandings of their employable
skills, is another matter. At the time of writing, there are no data
to assess whether the pattern identified by du Cros and Smith
continues. Such a study could provide useful insights into this
aspect of Australian archaeology.
Discussion
This paper opened with a discussion of glass ceilings and asked
whether one could be identified within Australian archaeology.
This study demonstrates that, while more female archaeologists
occupy full-time positions in Australian universities than was the
case 10 years ago, the glass ceiling is still present in Australian
academic archaeology. Our study identifies a two-tiered
glass ceiling that impedes women in academic archaeology. The
first is met by women early in their careers and prevents them
from obtaining stable, tenure track positions within universities.
The second impedes those women who gain employment in the
academy from being promoted to the upper echelons. While our
research focuses on the status of women in Australian academic
archaeology, a more comprehensive study is needed, one
which explores the patterns for women in other forms of
archaeological employment.
The trope of the glass ceiling raises an image of people
locked beneath a transparent ceiling but able to see through
to the world above them. Since glass is clear, those who are
underneath such a ceiling might not notice it at first. If they do,
they may choose not to examine it too closely, as its ongoing
existence is confronting and, since it is ever-present, affects
their day-to-day life. This glass barrier only becomes apparent
if people try to pass through it. In terms of Australian academic
archaeology, the notion of a glass ceiling is supported by an
Number 62, June 2006
Claire Smith and Heather Burke
assumption that these invisible barriers to advancement are
imposed from above, and that the ceiling is constructed by
those with an interest in preserving the special benefits and
privileges of their gender, ethnicity or position. While this is
no doubt part of it (either consciously or unconsciously), we
would argue also for a ‘glass parasol’ – a barrier that is equally
invisible, hard and ostensibly impenetrable, but one that is
fashioned by the gender ideologies and gender roles ascribed to,
and participated in by, both men and women (Figure 12). The
glass parasol consists of those impalpable barriers that prevent
qualified women from advancing to upper-level positions,
and relate to gender ideologies of appropriate behaviour and
gender roles enacted in activity patterns, social relations and
behaviours in specific cultural settings (cf. Conkey and Gero
1997). While there may be some hope of glass ceilings being
positioned at different heights in different institutional or
disciplinary environments, the glass parasol is carried around
by the individual, shaping their experience of each disciplinary
or institutional culture. In contrast to the glass ceiling that is
imposed from above, the glass parasol is fashioned by society
as a whole and held by the woman herself.
This study suggests that there are systemic barriers to
women’s progress in Australian academic archaeology. The
data show that female archaeologists are having difficulty in
gaining entry-level employment in Australian universities and
that women are under-represented in senior positions. While
the figures relating to publication rates and grant submissions
suggest that in some cases women’s progress is impeded by
glass parasols, the discrepancies are too great to be attributed
solely to this. Glass ceilings, in the form of cultural and
institutional barriers, exist at the level of entry to the academy
and advancement to the most senior levels. This a matter of
serious concern, not only for the individuals involved, but
also because of the skills and diversity that are being lost from
the workplace. Perhaps the most serious concern of all is that
these patterns are not unique to archaeology, the academy, or
Australia. A recent study of professional employment in Wales,
for example, found that:
“Many believe it has become even harder for women to win
promotions and hold on to them, and that not only is the glass
ceiling still very much present, but women are also aware of hitting
it at an early stage in their careers,” said Paul Clutton, director of
Cardiff ’s Professional Recruitment Wales (Barry 2005).
The patterning we identify in this paper occurs despite recent
changes aimed at redressing restrictive employment practices.
While there is variation in different institutions, these changes
include anti-discrimination legislation, the mandatory training
of appointment committees in equity issues, and the opportunity
for those seeking promotion to discuss career interruptions
due to child-rearing and family responsibilities. In terms of
advancement within the academy, the problem may lie more
with reluctance on the part of women to apply for promotion
than with discriminatory practices:
Figure 12 Glass parasols? (Drawing: Molly Trainor).
male colleagues. The success rate demonstrates that the quality
of applications by women is not the problem in the promotion
processes in universities. Women are applying in approximately
equivalent numbers to the eligible pool, and when they apply
for promotion they are relatively successful. In contrast to the
mid-1990s when promotion for women was constrained at level
C, it seems that moving from level C to D is the new barrier
to promotion for academic women. The matter of contention
is the exceedingly slow rate of progress towards gender equity.
Women are still significantly under-represented at senior levels
in Australian universities. Promotions policies and processes
in place do not explain the lack of progress overall. Other
factors, including more diffuse cultural understandings, must
be operating. Without overcoming these, using the existing rate
of a five per cent increase in the number of women at level E
in seven years, achieving equal numbers of women and men
in the professoriate would take another 49 years (Winchester
et al. 2005:35).
This study has been followed by a number of studies commissioned
by the Australian Vice Chancellors’ Committee, including two
‘action plans’ for women employed in Australian universities, the
most recent of which was issued in April 2006 (see Australian
Vice Chancellor’s Committee 2006). In a report commissioned
by the Australian Government’s Office of Women, Burton (1997)
identifies four major impediments to women achieving equity in
the workplace:
•
•
•
The statistical evidence demonstrates that once women
apply for promotion, they are successful, and in some cases,
particularly at senior levels, they are more successful than their
•
Stereotypical beliefs about women’s roles, attributes,
preferences and commitments.
Selection processes for entry to senior and executive
management.
Non-merit based Human Resource Management (HRM)
systems and practices.
Inadequate provision to women of access to formal and
informal developmental opportunities.
Number 62, June 2006
21
Glass Ceilings, Glass Parasols and Australian Academic Archaeology
Again, the discussion is framed in the language of victimhood
and, while the points have some validity, even nearly 10 years later
(sadly), women are not going to feel powerful enough to move
forward if they think of themselves – or allow others to think of
them – as victims. While detailed consideration of all the factors
raised by Burton is beyond the scope of this paper, we would
like to discuss briefly the influence of stereotypical beliefs. The
1990 Catalyst survey of Chief Executive Officers of Fortune 500/
Service 500 companies found that stereotypes regarding women in
business included: viewing them as less committed to their careers
than men; not tough enough; disinclined to work long or unusual
hours; too emotional; not aggressive enough (or, conversely, too
aggressive); lacking quantitative skills; not wishing to relocate;
and having difficulty making decisions (Catalyst 1990). One of
the most ubiquitous stereotypes is that the combination of a
successful career and a happy family is more difficult for females
than for males. In a recent survey of 120 top British employers
32% attributed the balancing of work and family responsibilities
as the principal obstacle to women’s advancement (Equal
Opportunities Review 1996:6). A recent expression of this view
by Harvard University President, Larry Summers (see Summers
2005), caused great controversy and a subsequent retraction (see
Healy and Rimer 2005; Rimer 2005). However, the issues are much
more complex than this, and always have been. For instance, only
3% of women managers interviewed in a 1984 Wall Street Journal/
Gallup survey cited family as the most serious obstacle in their
careers, while 50% named reasons related to their gender (Burton
1997). Similarly, only 7% of female managers left their positions
for family reasons in a Galagan survey cited by Hall (1995), while
73% left because they saw limited opportunities for women
in their companies. Despite this, managers are still inclined to
believe that the main impediment to women’s career progress
is their inability to find a balance between work and family
(Hall 1995:12).
One criticism of studies such as we have undertaken here is
that since the academic turnover in universities is slow, it takes a
long time for structural changes to show. However, this criticism
does not explain patterning at the entry-level of academic
employment, and, given that women have had a substantive
(though not equal) presence in the academy for almost 20 years,
we doubt if it explains the differences in promotion profiles.
While slow turnover in the academy may have some influence, in
our view there are many more indices of performance that need
to be addressed if we are to begin to understand the patterning
identified in this paper. These indices include geographic mobility,
networking, fundraising, consulting, teaching, age disparities at
academic levels, and managerial (administrative) responsibilities.
A recent study by Sabatier et al. (2006:322) has found that:
promotion to professor is linked to different criteria for male and
female academics. To be promoted, women have to demonstrate
greater involvement in the different dimensions of scientific
activity than men … [their] careers are influenced not only by
the number of publications, but also by personal involvement
in different dimensions, [such as] research management, fund
raising and research.
With this in mind, a useful way to extend our current study
would be to assess the effect of other performance indicators on
22
the speed of both women’s and men’s careers: Does the same
complex of factors affect male and female progress in Australian
academic archaeology? Moreover, we need to explore the reasons
behind such patterning, not only within Australian academic
archaeology but also in terms of the Australian academy as a
whole. This would furnish a dataset to extend other recent studies
in Australia (see Spoor and Lewis 1997) and allow comparison
with other countries. When considered globally there are patterns
that can seem surprising. For example, in Europe, Turkey has
the highest percentage of female full Professors, while the
Netherlands has the lowest (Boukhobza et al. 2000).
Finally, we would like to draw attention to an issue that is
pertinent to the younger generation of female archaeologists
– those who, in many ways, are the target audience for this
paper. Given the changes that have occurred within Australian
academic archaeology over the last 20 years, young women may
consider that equity has been achieved and some, moreover,
may wonder if there had ever been a serious problem to be
redressed in the first place. From a contemporary perspective,
it could be a simple matter to overlook the many earlier
women with comparable merits who tried but could not find
their place in the academy. In some ways, the impetus for this
paper came from the threat of neo-conservatism, in which
successful women assume that all women could achieve the
same success as them, if only they were willing to pay the
price (see Pipes 1999), and whereby women who have yet to
accomplish their goals assume they are on a playing field that
is level with that of their male peers. The data analysed in
this study show that this is not the case. While the climate of
Australian academic archaeology may have warmed a little, it is
still chilly, particularly at entry and upper levels. Neither glass
ceilings nor glass parasols are likely to contribute to any kind
of disciplinary warming.
Acknowledgements
The initial ideas for this paper were scoped out as a small part of
the article ‘Gender and (the disciplinary culture of) Australian
archaeology’ (Smith and O’Donnell in press). The results
identified in that paper gave us the impetus to conduct the
research that is published here.
As you can imagine, compiling the data published in this
paper was what Americans might call ‘challenging’, especially in
regards to current employment in university departments. Since
people were continually changing institutions, being promoted
or obtaining new fellowships, the database changed considerably
between the first draft of the paper and the last, although the
overall trends remained the same. In order to check the figures
we had to go back to key people several times, so we are very
grateful to those people who helped us calculate up-to-date
figures for their academic staff. In particular, we would like to
thank Jane Balme, Annie Clarke, Bruno David, Iain Davidson,
David Frankel, Maciej Henneberg, Tom Hilliard, Rosalinde
Kearsley, Susan Lawrence, Ian Lilley, Jane Lydon, Tim Murray,
Sue O’Connor, Dan Potts, Frank Sears, Ken Sheedy, Matthew
Spriggs and Sean Ulm.
For critical comments on drafts, or parts, of this paper we
thank John Campbell, Hilary du Cros, Annie Clarke, Bruno
David, Alice Gorman, Gary Jackson, Ian Lilley, Jane Lydon,
Angie McGowan, Lynn Meskell, Annie Ross, Laurajane Smith
Number 62, June 2006
Claire Smith and Heather Burke
and Katrina Stankowski. We also thank Molly Trainor for her
drawing of Figure 12. Finally, we thank the reviewers of this
paper, Sandra Bowdler and J. Peter White, for their suggestions
and critiques of the original submission. We accept responsibility
for any errors or omissions.
Endnotes
¹ We note in passing that several universities with a small number
of archaeological staff (Deakin, Charles Darwin and Charles
Sturt) no longer have archaeology programmes. There seems to
be a point at which the numbers become so low that the entire
programme is endangered. We were surprised at the level of
fluidity in university employment profiles: our original data
were compiled in February 2005 and when we updated our
figures in April 2006, there had been staff changes in nearly all
universities.
² The data were compiled from information on institutional
websites, cross-referenced with Faculty handbooks, and
confirmed by Heads of Departments and/or individual staff
members. In those cases where more than one department
employed archaeologists, the data were combined to give a figure
for the university as a whole. We excluded non-salaried positions,
such as Emeritus Professor or Adjunct Professor, casual, sessional
positions, such as tutors, and half-time positions. The position
of Reader was recorded as Associate Professor, as it is equivalent.
Research fellowships have similar levels to lectureships, but within
a research track: Postdoctoral Fellows as the equivalent of a Level
A or B Lecturer (not all postdocs are the same), Research Fellows
are the equivalent of a Level C or D Lecturer, and professorial
Research Fellows are the equivalent of a Level E Lecturer. These
data do not take into account interdisciplinary collaborations, or
include scholars who work closely with archaeologists, but do
not identify as archaeologists (e.g. people who have developed
direct dating techniques for archaeological material, but are not
archaeologists per se, or palynologists who work on archaeological
questions) or those who draw upon archaeological data in the
normal course of their work but primarily identify with another
discipline (e.g. some ancient historians). The database is small,
particularly for some classifications, and we have taken this into
account in our analysis.
References
Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry 2004 Why do one million
Australians live overseas? ACCI Review 118:1-6. Retrieved 19 April 2006 from
http://www.acci.asn.au/text_files/review/r118.pdf.
Australian Research Council 2004 Discovery Projects Selection Report for Funding
Commencing in 2005. Retrieved 19 April 2006 from http://www.arc.gov.au.
Australian Vice Chancellors’ Committee 2003 Academic Staff by
Classification and Gender: 1994-2002. Retrieved 19 April 2006 from http://
www.avcc.edu.au/content.asp?page=/policies_programs/women/index.htm.
Australian Vice Chancellors’ Committee 2006 The Second AVCC Action Plan for
Women Employed in Australian Universities 2006-2010. Retrieved 19 April
2006 from http://www.avcc.edu.au/content.asp?page=/policies_programs/
women/index.htm.
Baker, B., S. Graham and S. Williams 2003 Teaching under a glass ceiling: A study
of gender equity in federal education career fields. Advancing Women in
Leadership 13. Retrieved 19 April 2006 from http://www.advancingwomen.
com/awl/awl.html.
Barry, S. 2005 Cracking the glass ceiling barrier. Retrieved 19 April 2006 from
http://icwales.icnetwork.co.uk/0300business/0100news/tm_objectid=15194
617%26method=full%26siteid=50082-name_page.html.
Beck, W. 1995 Women in archaeology: Australia and the United States.
In M.C. Nelson, S.M. Nelson and A. Wylie (eds), Equity Issues for
Women in Archeology, pp.99-105. Archaeological Papers of the
American Anthropological Association 5. Washington, D.C.: American
Anthropological Association.
Beck, W. and J. Balme 1994 Gender in Aboriginal archaeology: Recent research.
Australian Archaeology 39:39-46.
Beck, W. and L. Head 1990 Women in Australian prehistory. Australian Feminist
Studies 11:29-48.
Boukhobza, N., H. Delavault and C. Hermann 2000 Demain la parité: Les en
seignants-chercheurs a l’université, la place des femmes: 80. Paris: Ministère
de l’education nationale.
Bowdler, S. and G. Clune 2000 That shadowy band: The role of women
in the development of Australian archaeology. Australian Archaeology
50:27-35.
Bradley, C. and U. Dahl 1995 Productivity and advancement of women
archaeologists. In M.C. Nelson, S.M. Nelson and A. Wylie (eds), Equity
Issues for Women in Archeology, pp.189-194. Archaeological Papers of the
American Anthropological Association 5. Washington, D.C.: American
Anthropological Association.
Buckley, K. 1993 Cultural resource management and gender issues. In H. du Cros
and L. Smith (eds), Women in Archaeology: A Feminist Critique, pp.173-174.
Occasional Papers in Prehistory 23. Canberra: Department of Prehistory,
Research School of Pacific Studies, Australian National University.
Burton, C. 1997 Gender Equity in the Faculties and in the Institute of the Arts
at the Australian National University: A Report. Canberra: Australian
National University.
Catalyst 1990 Survey of CEOs of Fortune 500/Service 500 Companies. New
York: Catalyst.
Chester, H., N.A. Rothschild and D. diZerega Wall 1995 Women in historical archaeology.
In M.C. Nelson, S.M. Nelson and A. Wylie (eds), Equity Issues for Women in
Archeology, pp.213-218. Archaeological Papers of the American Anthropological
Association 5. Washington, D.C.: American Anthropological Association.
Chesterman, C. 2000 Women’s Executive Development in Australian Higher
Education: The Wexdev Model. Paper presented at Nawe Conference, New
Orleans, January 2000. Retrieved 5 January 2005 from http://www.uts.edu.
au/oth/wexdev/pdfs/womens_exec_dev.pdf.
Chicago Area Partnerships 1994 Pathways and Progress: Corporate Best Practices
to Shatter the Glass Ceiling. Available from Women Employed, 22 W. Monroe,
Suite 1400, Chicago, IL 60603.
Clarke, A. 1993 CRM as archaeological housework: Confining women to the ghetto
of management. In H. du Cros and L. Smith (eds), Women in Archaeology: A
Feminist Critique, pp.91-94. Occasional Papers in Prehistory 23. Canberra:
Department of Prehistory, Research School of Pacific Studies, Australian
National University.
Cole, J.R. and H. Zuckerman 1984 The productivity puzzle: Persistence and
change in patterns of publication of men and women scientists. Advances in
Motivation and Achievement 2:217-258.
Colley, S. 2000 Sisters are doing it for themselves?: Gender, feminism and
Australian (Aboriginal) archaeology. In L. Hurcombe and M. Donald
(eds), Gender and Material Culture in Archaeological Perspective, pp.20-32.
London: Macmillan.
Collins, L.H., J.C. Chrisler and K. Qunia (eds) 1998 Career Strategies for Women in
Academe: Arming Athena. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Conkey, M.W. and J. Gero 1997 Programme to practice: Gender and feminism in
archaeology. Annual Review of Anthropology 26:411-437.
Number 62, June 2006
23
Glass Ceilings, Glass Parasols and Australian Academic Archaeology
Department of Education, Science and Training 2001 Characteristics and
Performance Indicators of Australian Higher Education Institutions, 2000.
Retrieved 19 April 2006 from http://www.dest.gov.au/archive/highered/
statistics/characteristics/contents.htm#2.
Diaz-Andreu, M. and N. Gallego 1995 Women in Spanish archaeology. In M.C.
Nelson, S.M. Nelson and A. Wylie (eds), Equity Issues for Women in Archeology,
pp.121-130. Archaeological Papers of the American Anthropological
Association 5. Washington, D.C.: American Anthropological Association.
du Cros, H. and L. Smith 1993 Why a feminist critique of archaeology?
In H. du Cros and L. Smith (eds), Women in Archaeology: A Feminist
Critique, pp.xvii-xx. Occasional Papers in Prehistory 23. Canberra:
Department of Prehistory, Research School of Pacific Studies, Australian
National University.
Equal Opportunities Review 1996 Limited progress for top women, says Hansard
Society. Equal Opportunities Review 67(May/June):5-6.
Flood, J. 1993 Cultural resource management in Australia. In M. Spriggs, D.E.
Yen, W. Ambrose, R. Jones, A. Thorne and A. Andrews (eds), A Community
of Culture: The People and Prehistory of the Pacific, pp.259-265. Occasional
Papers in Prehistory 21. Canberra: Department of Prehistory, Research School
of Pacific Studies, Australian National University.
Ford, A. and A. Hundt 1995 Women in academia – Why the best men
still win: An examination of women and men in Mesoamerican
archaeology. In M.C. Nelson, S.M. Nelson and A. Wylie (eds), Equity
Issues for Women in Archeology, pp.147-156. Archaeological Papers of the
American Anthropological Association 5. Washington, D.C.: American
Anthropological Association.
Frankel, D. 1998 Archaeology. In Knowing Ourselves and Others: The Humanities
in Australia into the 21st Century, pp.17-28. Vol. 2. Canberra: Department of
Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs.
Gero, J.M. 1985 Sociopolitics and the woman-at-home ideology. American
Antiquity 50(2):342-350.
Gero, J.M. 1988 Gender bias in archaeology: Here, then and now. In S.V. Roser (ed.),
Feminism within Science and Health Care Professions: Overcoming Resistance,
pp.33-43. New York: Pergamon Press.
Goodell, J. 1998 Increasing the enrolment, retention and success of female students
in non-traditional areas: What strategies can we use to involve staff in
developing a more gender- and culturally-inclusive educational environment?
In B. Black and N. Stanley (eds), Teaching and Learning in Changing Times:
Proceedings of the 7th Annual Teaching Learning Forum, The University of
Western Australia, February 1998, pp.120-124. Perth: University of Western
Australia. Retrieved 19 April 2006 from http://lsn.curtin.edu.au/tlf/tlf1998/
contents.html.
Goulding, M., K. Buckley and G. Brennan 1993 The role of gender in archaeological
career structures: A Victorian case study. In H. du Cros and L. Smith (eds),
Women in Archaeology: A Feminist Critique, pp.222-231. Occasional Papers in
Prehistory 23. Canberra: Department of Prehistory, Research School of Pacific
Studies, Australian National University.
Hall, P. 1995 Affirmative Action and Managing Diversity. Affirmative Action
Agency Monograph 8. Canberra: Australian Government Publishing
Service.
Hansen, K. 2005 10 Powerful career strategies for women. Retrieved 19 April 2006
from http://www.quintcareers.com/women_career_strategies.html.
Healy, P.D. and S. Rimer 2005 Furor lingers as Harvard chief gives details of talk on
women. New York Times 18 February 2005.
Hope, J. 1995 On the margin: Women, archaeology and cultural heritage – An
Australian case study. In M.C. Nelson, S.M. Nelson and A. Wylie (eds), Equity
Issues for Women in Archeology, pp.105-113. Archaeological Papers of the
American Anthropological Association 5. Washington, D.C.: American
Anthropological Association.
24
Hugo, G., D. Rudd and K. Harris 2001 Emigration from Australia: Economic
Implications. CEDA Information Paper 77. Melbourne: Committee for
Economic Development of Australia. Retreived 19 April 2006 from http://www.
immi.gov.au/research/publications/econimpact_1.pdf.
Hutson, S. 1998 Strategies for the reproduction of prestige in archaeological
discourse. Assemblage 4. Retrieved 19 April 2006 from http://www.shef.
ac.uk/assem/4/.
Hymowitz, C. and T.D. Schellhardt 1986 The glass ceiling: Why women can’t seem
to break the invisible barrier that blocks them from the top jobs. The Wall
Street Journal 24 March 1986, p.1.
Keller, E.F. 1985 Reflections on Gender and Science. New Haven, CT: Yale
University Press.
McDowell, J. and J. Smith 1992 The effect of gender-sorting on the propensity to coauthor: Implications for academic promotion. Economic Inquiry 30:68-82.
McGowan, A. 1995 Working lives: The career prospects and aspirations of men
and women cultural resource managers in Tasmania. In J. Balme and W. Beck
(eds), Gendered Archaeology: The Second Australian Women in Archaeology
Conference, pp.28-33. Research Papers in Archaeology and Natural History 26.
Canberra: Archaeology and Natural History Publications, Research School of
Pacific and Asian Studies, Australian National University.
Meskell, L. 2003 Feminist theory and feminist anthropology: What conversations could
or should we be having? American Anthropological Association Newsletter April.
Morrison, A.M., R.P. White, E. Van Velsor and Center for Creative Leadership 1992
Breaking the Glass Ceiling: Can Women Reach the Top of America’s Largest
Corporations? Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing Co.
National Science Foundation 1997 Professional Opportunities for Women in
Research and Education (NSF 97-91). Arlington, VA: National Science
Foundation.
National Science Foundation 2003 Gender Diversity in Science Technology,
Engineering and Mathematics Education (GDSE): Program Announcement
(NSF 03-502). Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation.
Nelson, M.C., S.M. Nelson and A. Wylie (eds) 1995 Equity Issues for Women
in Archeology. Archaeological Papers of the American Anthropological
Association 5. Washington, D.C.: American Anthropological Association.
Nicol, C. 2000 The state of research in Australia: Brain drain, university research
funding and the microelectronics industry. Retrieved 19 April 2006 from
http://www.dest.gov.au/sectors/science_innovation/publications_resources/
profiles/state_of_research_in_Australia.htm.
Phillips, C. 1998 Answering the old boys’ club: Support systems for women
archaeologists. In M. Casey, D. Donlan, J. Hope and S. Wellfare (eds),
Redefining Archaeology: Feminist Perspectives, pp.63-67. Research Papers in
Archaeology and Natural History 29. Canberra: ANH Publications, Research
School of Pacific and Asian Studies, Australian National University.
Pipes, S. 1999 Women: Dancing on the glass ceiling. The Contrarian: News and
Comments on Women’s Issues 3(17). Retrieved 19 April 2006 from http://www.
pacificresearch.org/pub/con/1999/99-09-22.html.
Reich, R.B. 1995 Message from the chair. In A Solid Investment: Making Full Use
of the Nation’s Human Capital Recommendations, pp.4-6. Washington D.C: U.S.
Department of Labor.
Rimer, S. 2005 Professors at Harvard confront its president. New York Times 16
February 2005.
Rosser, S.V. 2004 The Science Glass Ceiling: Academic Women Scientists and the
Struggle to Succeed. London: Routledge.
Sabatier, M., M. Carrere and V. Mangematin 2006 Profiles of academic activities
and careers: Does gender matter?: An analysis based on French life scientist
CVs. Journal of Technology Transfer 31:311-324.
Smith, C. and E. O’Donnell in press Women and (the disciplinary culture of)
Australian archaeology. In S. Nelson (ed.), Handbook of Gender Archaeology.
Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira.
Number 62, June 2006
Claire Smith and Heather Burke
Smith, L. 2000 A history of Aboriginal heritage legislation in south-eastern
Australia. Australian Archaeology 50:109-118.
Spoor, E. and C. Lewis 1997 Gender imbalance in higher education: The Australian
perspective. In F. Gale and B. Goldflam (eds), Strategies to Redress Gender
Imbalance in Numbers of Senior Academic Women, pp.34-47. Nedlands:
University of Western Australia.
Summers, L. 2005 Remarks at NBER conference on diversifying the science and
engineering workforce. Retrieved 19 April 2006 from http://www.president.
harvard.edu/speeches/2005/nber.html.
Truscott, M. and L. Smith 1993 Women’s roles in the archaeological workforce. In H.
du Cros and L. Smith (eds), Women in Archaeology: A Feminist Critique, pp.217221. Occasional Papers in Prehistory 23. Canberra: Department of Prehistory,
Research School of Pacific Studies, Australian National University.
U.S. Federal Glass Ceiling Commission 1995a A Solid Investment: Making Full
Use of the Nation’s Human Capital Recommendations. Washington D.C: U.S.
Department of Labor.
U.S. Federal Glass Ceiling Commission 1995b Good for Business: Making Full Use
of the Nation’s Human Capital: The Fact-Finding Report. Washington D.C: U.S.
Department of Labor.
Vetter, B.M. 1996 Myths and realities of women’s progress in the sciences, mathematics,
and engineering. In C-S. Davis,A.B. Ginorio, C.S. Hollenshead, B.B. Lazarus and P.M.
Rayman (eds), The Equity Equation: Fostering the Advancement of Women in the
Sciences, Mathematics, and Engineering, pp.29-56. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
Victor, K. and M. Beaudry 1992 Women’s participation in American prehistoric and
historic archaeology: A comparative look at the journals American Antiquity
and Historical Archaeology. In C. Claassen (ed.), Exploring Gender through
Archaeology, pp.11-21. Madison, WN: Prehistory Press.
Williams, C. 2001 Successful Woman’s Guide to Working Smart: Ten Strengths that
Matter Most. Palo Alto: Davies-Black Publishing.
Winchester, H. 2005 Staffing Issues for Universities. Paper presented to the 3rd
Annual Higher Education Summit, 17-18 March 2005, Melbourne.
Winchester, H., C. Chesterman, S. Lorenzo and L. Browning 2005 The Great
Barrier Myth: An Investigation of Promotions Policy and Practice in Australian
Universities. Canberra: Australian Vice-Chancellors Committee.
Wood, F.Q. 2004 ‘Beyond Brain Drain’: Mobility, Competitiveness and Scientific
Excellence. Armidale: Centre for Higher Education Management and Policy,
University of New England. Retrieved 19 April 2006 from http://www.une.edu.
au/sat/chemp/arms/.
Wylie, A. 1993 Workplace issues for women in archaeology: The chilly climate. In H.
du Cros and L. Smith (eds), Women in Archaeology: A Feminist Critique, pp.245258. Occasional Papers in Prehistory 23. Canberra: Department of Prehistory,
Research School of Pacific Studies, Australian National University.
Zarmati, L. 1998 Archaeo-speak: The politics of language in archaeology. In
M. Casey, D. Donlan, J. Hope and S. Wellfare (eds), Redefining Archaeology:
Feminist Perspectives, pp.3-8. Research Papers in Archaeology and Natural
History 29. Canberra: ANH Publications, Research School of Pacific and Asian
Studies, Australian National University.
Zikmund, B.B. 1988 The well-being of academic women is still being sabotaged
– By colleagues, by students, and by themselves. Chronicle of Higher Education
1 September:A44.
Number 62, June 2006
25