NON-DECISION MAKING AND GENDER IN SCHOOLS
Author: Dr. Doreen McCalla-Chen
Institutional and Postal Address:
Faculty of Education
Nottingham Trent University
Clifton Hall
Clifton Village
Nottingham
NG11 8NJ
UK
Telephone: 0115 848 6716
Email:
NON-DECISION MAKING AND GENDER IN SCHOOLS
ABSTRACT
Non-decision making is pervasive in all areas of society. It is the power system and micro-political process by which certain issues are consciously or unconsciously excluded from pertinent arenas of decisions or decision makers. Through qualitative investigation of two schools in the school sector,[1] it was discovered that issues relating to and/or forwarded by women, were frequently either ‘barred’ from decision making or, if these issues arrived in arenas of decision, the process and progress of decision making were ineffective. This paper aims to explain and identify, through practical examples, the concept of non-decision making in relation to discrimination against women and girls in the school sector. By pinpointing female discrimination in school sector decision making, the objective here is to encourage the exploration of a social justice agenda for women that aims to implement organisational policies and practices to alleviate female discrimination and ameliorate the pursuit of issues relating to women and girls in decision making.
INTRODUCTION
The concept of non-decision making (Bachrach and Baratz, 1970) and its relationship to female discrimination[2] arose out of an Economic and Social Research Council study into power and school sector decision making (see *). Through case study empirical investigations of two schools in England, this study sought to capture the complexities of power relationships and develop a conceptual framework of power and decision making in schools that is essentially illuminating, contestable and attenuates previous work. Data was collected by qualitative semi-structured interviews (Fielding, 1993) of a cross-section of the entire schools population, observation (Smith, 1975) of meetings and ‘work shadowing’ of selective participants. Analysis of data took the combined form of coding-down (Fielding) pre-defined concepts and Strussian coding-up (Strauss, 1987; Strauss and Corbin, 1990). (See * for a comprehensive coverage of the methods and methodology employed).
This paper will explore some of the issues relating to the interrelationship of gender and non-decision making that emerged from the study. This will be done by first, exploring a conceptual framework of non-decision making and female discrimination. The second section will discuss emergent, empirical data and supporting, analytical information. This paper is intended to focus on developing the relationship between the concept of power as non-decision making, and gender in school education.
A CONCEPTUAL OVERVIEW
This section is divided into four subsections: first, the community ‘power debate’; second, the concept of non-decision making; third, feminist research in education and fourth the interrelationship of non-decision making and feminism.
The Community ‘Power Debate’
The origin of non-decision making is to be found among the body of literature commonly known to political scientists as the ‘power debate’. The ‘power debate’ is primarily associated with works of Dahl (1961), Bachrach and Baratz (1970) and Lukes (1974). Power here is essentially political and agency-centred. By political I mean that it is about serving interests (Lukes), democracy, competitive and/or collective bargaining, decision making (Dahl) and non-decision making (Bachrach and Baratz – see below). Power is agency-centred because it emphasises and characterises actors’ autonomy, interaction, mobility, liberty, choice and release (Giddens, 1976; Clegg, 1989; Barnes, 2000). For Dahl, Bachrach and Baratz and Lukes power is exercised and measured in discordant relationships –‘power over’ - between human agents and/or systematic action, for example, in the running and planning of a school. In this sense, power is conceptually ‘dispositional’ as it has the capacity to effect action (Clegg) rather than ‘facilitative’ (Parsons, 1968) in terms of its ability to achieve goals – ‘power to’ (Clegg). This does not mean that structural restrains are abated nor agency resistance to structure resolved as portrayed in Bachrach and Baratz (1970). Thus for Dahl (1961) and Bachrach and Baratz (1970), although not for Lukes (1974) which totally distinguishes between agency and structure, power also incorporates some elements of Marxian structural economics, social class divisions, ownership or control of knowledge and the means of production (Marx, 1967; Crompton, 1993). However, for Lukes (1977) and similarly for Dahl and Bachrach and Baratz, power is ubiquitous and is thus dispersed among numerous persons in various locations in society. Power is therefore said to be pluralistic (Dahl). This pervasive and multi-layered notion of power is also shared by Foucauldian poststructuralism (Foucault, 1980), although from an entirely different typology of power to that of Dahl, Bachrach and Baratz and Lukes. Foucauldian poststructuralism sees power as automatically and uncontrollably operating in structural discourses (Foucault, 1977; 1980). It is therefore neither exercised (Dahl, Bachrach and Baratz and Lukes) nor possessed (Marx, 1967; Weber, 1978). Oppressive structures and systems are thus regarded as independent of human responsibility. Nonetheless, the invasiveness and pluralism of power as employed in the power debate, thus mean that options are available and agents are empowered to address the circumstances they confront.
Finally, since power is agency-centred and political as suggested by the power debate, decisions (or non-decisions) and interests are apt to securement through conflict (Anderson, 1994). However, an incremental, collective (Weber, 1978; Collins, 1986a, b) and diplomatic process is implied between conflicting parties. This is not to imply spontaneously smooth transactions and a manipulative- and callousness-free decision making process (Bachrach and Baratz, 1970) as this paper is intended to reveal. Nonetheless, it does mean that power will not be exercised through the kind of revolutionary practices and violence claimed by Marxian structuralism (Marx, 1967).
The Concept of Non-Decision Making
According to Bachrach and Baratz (1970) non-decision making is the political process by which specific issues are excluded from decision-making arenas or identified decision makers. As pointed out above, the exclusion of issues from decision making does not insinuate political inactivity because non-decision making is inclusive of political activity. In order to understand the underlying principle responsible for non-decision making Bachrach and Baratz (1970) adopted the concept of the mobilisation of bias from Schattschneider (1960). Bachrach and Baratz (1970, p. 44) argue that
a “mobilisation of bias” is a set of predominant values, beliefs, rituals and institutional procedures...that operate systematically and consistently to the benefit of certain persons and groups at the expense of others. Those who benefit are placed in a preferred position to defend and promote their vested interests. More often than not, the “status-quo” defenders are a minority or elite group within the population in question.
According to Bachrach and Baratz there are five types of the mobilisation of bias. My investigation identified a further two which is articulated more comprehensively in * alongside Bachrach and Baratz’s five, and summarised in a tabular form here.
TABLE 1 AND ACCOMPANYING COMMENTS HERE
The third, fourth, fifth and sixth of these are exemplified below.
In addition to the mobilisation of bias, the study found the concept of ‘personality’ (*) also responsible for non-decision making. The concept of personality is nuance from the concept of role conflict as adapted by Grace (1972) in his study of teachers’ roles. Two broad typologies of role conflict exist among the variants identified in Grace. They are psychological role conflict and social role conflict (see also *). The concept of personality is a type of the later and thus will only be addressed in this paper. According to Grace social role conflict exits when an individual’s or group’s social class position, values and/or responsibilities are at odds or incompatible with their preferred or customary social environment/setting, own social division, values and/or role. In my study role conflict occurs because of personality clashes between pursuant and decision maker. Such personality clashes result in failure to pursue issues with relevant decision makers or in appropriate decision making arenas - non-decision making. In these cases, agents will pursue their causes through alternative decision making routes as will be explored below.
Feminist Research in Education
Studies on discrimination against women in society, more generally, are well documented (see McIntosh, 1978; Walby 1986, 1988, 1990; Pateman, 1989; Williams, 1989; Cockburn, 1991; Acker, 1992; Salvage et al., 1992; Chapman, 1993; 1995; Evett, 1994; Mirza, 1997). Taken predominantly from modernist-feminist positions, although not exclusively so, these accounts either directly or inadvertently blame a structure or system of power for gender inequalities and discrimination of women whether this power operates in the form of patriarchy, capitalism, and in the case of black women, racism and/or imperialism.
Drawing on structural or post-structural theory and applied to education, Ball (1987), Acker (1989, 1995), Burgess (1989), Riddell (1989) and Datnow (1998) demonstrate the application of power to discriminate against women teachers in general. Paechter (1998) reveal power and hegemonic discourse as explicitly responsible for gender discrimination of teachers when investigating into design and technology (D&T) and physical education (PE) and Willis et al. (1996) discovered similar power/gender inequalities in the restructuring of work and vocational education in secondary schools. Grace (1995), Bell et al. (1996) and Gold (1997) note that men predominately occupy school Headships, Deem et al. (1995) find men to be over-presented on school governing bodies (and particularly within the more influential sub-committees of governing bodies) and Wallace and Hall (1994) and Coulron and Boulton (1998) witness school Senior Management Teams (SMTs) dominated by men and marked by androcentrism, that is, “viewing the world and shaping reality through a male lens” (Wallace and Hall, p. 38).[3] In attempting to find a more flexible explanation of gendered power relations and emancipation of women in society, some educational academics have recently turned to poststructural relativism (Francis, 1999), namely Squires (1993), Griffiths (1995), Davies (1997) and Francis (1997). The appeal for feminists post-structuralist lies in this position’s rejection of truth narratives, empowerment through multiple and simultaneous positioning and repositioning of self and deconstruction through discursive analysis (Francis, 1999). Post-structuralism suggests a complex and diverse analysis of gender differences and power relations that does not merely cut along gender lines. Thus, the interrelationship of gender, ‘race’, class, status, and structural positioning would be significant in the analysis of power relationships. For example, Paechter (1998) shows the interplay of gender and status and Callender (1997) and Jones et al. (1997) demonstrate the interplay through status, race and gender in the discrimination of black women in teacher training.
The Interrelations of Non-decision Making and Feminism
This paper is concerned with a number of factors that link feminist theory with the concept of non-decision making. First, I am primarily concerned with political exclusion in decision-making – non-decision making – and the exercise of patriarchal power in the school sector. As power is exercised it is neither about possession as in Marx (1967) and Weber (1978) nor about Foucauldian uncontrolled automation (Foucault, 1980). As will be demonstrated below, and as is also seen in Dahlerup (1984) and in Outshoorn (1991) on policy-making in the USA and Holland respectively, White men predominantly exercised power over White women. Only in an isolated case in the paper will we find a modified form of matriarchy, that is the power of a woman over another woman, as opposed to traditional matriarchy, that is women over men. Two reasons account for White patriarchy and non-decision making. First, men were structurally located in positions of seniority at all levels of the school hierarchy compared with their female counterparts (see the table below) – an exemplification of Weberian status consumption, prestige (Weber, 1978), the exclusion of women through social closure and the sexual division of labour (Walby, 1988; 1990). As leaders, these men were able to use their positions in a covertly sexist and patriarchal political system, to serve their own interests. Second, the racial composition of total staff was two out of 54 at one school and one of 60 at the other. Neither of the two or one respectively was in leadership.
TABLE 2 AND EXPLANATIONS HERE
The second factor linking non-decision making to feminism is the advocacy of politics and agency. Agency here is primarily about political action (Ramazanoglu, 1993) for political and social change of women from political castration and non-decision making to social freedom (Soper, 1990; Assiter, 1996), political emancipation and decision making. It is not simply about positioning and repositioning as ascribes by post-structural feminism (Francis, 1999). As will be seen below, competitive and democratic action (Weber, 1978) and efficacy of women in decision making was achieved in some instances despite structural and systematic opposition thus demonstrating the incorporation of political action amidst the notion of non-decision making.
The third factor is the ascription to truth narratives and value judgements that states the moral incorrectness of patriarchal oppression (Soper, 1990; Assiter, 1996). Whilst acknowledging gender diversity and thus different forms of gender oppression, as a homogenous group (with possibly few global exceptions) women’s oppression by men is commonplace and specially apparent in organisational non-decision making – the focus of this paper. It is this oppression that political change is attempting to circumvent and remove.
The pervasion of power (Lukes, 1977, Foucault, 1980) is the fourth factor linking feminism and non-decision making. The paper will show that attempts to exclude women from decision making are evident at all levels of the school structural and systematic hierarchy. This permeation of power further emphasises the need for political action to change existing structures and systems. This is because repositioning alone as, suggested by post-structural feminism, is insufficient in itself as a means to escaping power-pervasion. In addition, this repositioning agenda does not account for perpetual oppression of some women overtime and in whichever discourse they reside. The best that repositioning can achieve is to relocate women into less oppressive discourses compared with others and in where such oppression is acceptable or bearable. Furthermore, repositioning of the oppressed from an environment of oppressive serves the interest of the oppressors. This is because oppression is used, consciously or unconsciously, to exclude others - a form of social exclusion (Weber, 1978). For example, by the departure of women from an oppressive all male setting, the setting is not only apt to remain oppressive to other women who may wish to occupy the environment but will also continue as a male, exclusive club.
The mobilisation of bias is the fifth factor connecting feminism and non-decision making. This will be seen first, through the interplay of gender/status roles. The examples will demonstrate the mobilisation of bias as responsible for sexual divisions of labour (Walby, 1988) and structural/status divisions, inequalities, hierarchies and discrimination. The mobilisation of bias is also seen through second, gendered stereotyping primarily in recruitment into employment and issues relating to equality of opportunity.
The six factor linking feminism and non-decision making is the concept of personality. The link is recognisable in that gendered personality clashes emanates from disputes, which were invariably gender-related, and with regards to women’s disapproval with having to contend with the problems of working in patriarchal, male-dominated environments. This gendered personality clash lead to non-decision making as women were sometimes reluctant to forward their concerns as this undoubtedly meant conversing in patriarchal decision making systems and with sexist men who were sometimes at variance with these women.
Finally before considering the practical evidence of the relationship between non-decision making and gender, it is perhaps reasonable to render this position an essentially modernist inherent or, to extend the boundaries, maybe a late modernist stance. This is because the plea to truth, action for social and political change and human power-responsibility and accountability, counters post-structural nihilism (Francis, 1999). By late modernity I mean
it is still possible to engage with the traditional concerns …– social justice, inequality and social divisions – but not to do so in the traditional, modernist manner (Deacon and Mann, 1999).
Late modernity is affiliated to works by Giddens (1976, 1990, 1994), Beck (1992) and Anderson (1994) although neither advocate a specifically feminist agenda. Nonetheless, they all
retain their commitments to certain ethical, social and political concerns [thus] they are not, almost as a consequence, ‘real’ post-modernists (Deacon and Mann)
as I also cannot be for the same reasons.
GENDER AND NON-DECISION MAKING IN PRACTISE
The mobilisation of Bias and Gender/Status roles
The extent to which concerns of women are likely to be non-decisional was pertinent with regards to gendered/status hierarchies and inequalities within departments, between disciplines/subjects and between teaching and non-teaching staff in both case study schools. The encounter by Mrs Lee, a science laboratory technician at Baxter, is a case in point.
Hierarchy, inequality and discrimination in the Science Department
Mrs. LI’ve raised several issues like this [that is, gendered inequality between teaching staff who are male, and technical staff, who are female, in the Science department] with the Head …at one point I was beginning to feel like I was hitting my head up against a brick wall and it does get like that sometimes, em it can be the stage that you think well, they treat you as an equal then sometimes it can get to the stage where so much pressure is put upon them, that one slip and you’re back to being a chief cook and bottle washer (Mrs Lee, Laboratory Technician, Baxter).[4]
Among the 5 different types of the mobilisation of bias identified by Bachrach and Baratz (1970) the third is exposed here, that is, the devaluing of the importance of a request. The mobilisation of bias functions to establish a non-decision making because the importance of the requester, namely Mrs. Lee, and the request, that is, change to the present patriarchal system in the science department, are devalued, possibly unconsciously, by the decision maker - the Head. Furthermore, non-decision making occurs because the sexual division of labour (see Walby, 1988, 1990; Williams, 1989) between science teachers, who are male, and technicians, who are female, means that men are structurally located in positions of authority and leadership in the science department. Women’s subordination commands limited respect and requires their accountability to their male colleagues. The female technicians - the only two females in the department - are aware of the gendered/status division and the exercise of patriarchal power in the department: