Intro to Power Knowledge and the Academy

Introduction from: Power, Knowledge and the Academy: The Institutional is political (2007) (ed’s Val Gillies & Helen Lucey) Palgrave Introduction: The Institutional is Political Val Gillies and Helen Lucey Issues of power have long occupied academics. Interpersonal dynamics, institutional workings and the relationships between power, knowledge and control have been the subject of copious study and theorising. However, this scrutiny is less commonly extended to the site of academia itself. A popular image of the academy as a rarefied haven of detached reasoning and refined culture detracts from a more prosaic truth that universities are structured and sustained through the operation of power on multiple levels. This is graphically illustrated in Pierre Bourdieu’s (2001) classic study, Homo Academicus, in which he maps the hierarchical workings of academic sociology in terms of status, reputation, distinction and other power practices. In the main though, reflections on power in the academy are restricted to debates about inequality of opportunity, with feminists and others at the margins of academia speaking out about the discrimination faced by women, ethnic minorities and those from working class backgrounds (Malina and Maslin-Prothero 1998, Mahony and Zmroczek 1997, Morley and Walsh 1996) There is considerably less written about the everyday process of negotiating institutional power relations, despite its central role in building and sustaining an academic career. Of course, there are exceptions to this. The Women’s Workshop is a collective of social science academics of all levels and statuses that have been meeting and publishing since 1995 (see Ribbens and Edwards 1998; Mauthner et al 2002). They have consistently drawn upon and extended the work of those (feminists and others) who have dared to navigate these largely uncharted and potentially perilous waters to reveal some of the ‘conflicts, tensions, resentments, competing interests and power imbalances [that] influence everyday transactions in institutions’ (Morley 1999: 4). Nevertheless, the dilemmas and uncertainties that the everyday negotiation of institutional power relations in universities inevitably generates, are rarely openly acknowledged or discussed. This institutional denial has produced the sense that such issues lie mainly in the domain of inter- and intra-personal dynamics and are somehow detached from the essential business of teaching and producing research. In the process of maintaining such strong splits between the personal and the institutional, the workings of power in it’s multiplicity of sites, forms and effects are rendered crude at best and invisible at worst. In the established feminist tradition, our edited collection challenges such personal/political, public/private distinctions, to extend our thinking about the ways in which gendered, raced and classed power relations are routinely exercised within a higher education framework. Written from the perspective of a wide range of women researchers positioned at various points in the academic hierarchy, the chapters seek to explore different dimensions and experiences of power as they are lived. All of the chapters work with a multi-layered conception of power: of what it is, what it can do, where and with whom it lies and how it circulates in the spaces between people, groups and the institutions of higher education. Rather than viewing power as an objective entity either to be wielded, desired or feared, each chapter addresses it as a relational attribute which is fluid, shifting and ever present. The influence of Foucault’s work is evident in this book. As he famously pointed out power is everywhere, and ‘is not an institution, and not a structure; neither is it a certain strength we are endowed with; it is the name that one attributes to a complex strategical situation in a particular society’ (1978: 93). Poststructuralist ideas about power help maintain the dynamism between ‘a diverse, contrary social sphere and the many-sided, contradictory subject’ (Lucey and Rogers, this volume). Power can operate at many different levels and in contradictory ways. We can think about power as residing in the institution, inscribed in rules, roles and status; as a personal possession of individuals or groups, conferred by virtue of social and cultural position; and as connected to the distribution of resources. We can invoke the forces of rationality when discussing power, knowledge and the academy; but there are less rational though just as powerful unconscious forces at play in both the institutional and inter-subjective relations of knowledge production. As the chapters in this book demonstrate, the everyday, mundane practices which form universities and build academic careers are suffused with an emotionality that defies the most rational of interventions. Fantasies, desires, fears and defences of all kinds, some of which we are conscious and some which remain at least partially hidden, play their part in the shape and movement of power from embarking on a PhD to getting published. Importantly, this multidimensional take on power alerts us to the view that power not only has the potential to spoil and destroy, but that it is also constructive, creative and reparative. A reflexive consideration of the power that researchers engender and exploit in their efforts to study and describe the social world has featured in much of our previous collective work as the Women’s Workshop. However, discussions of the relationship between power and knowledge tend to address an imagined, abstract, isolated space inhabited by individuals in their efforts to practice ethically. Less attention has been given to the role of institutional dynamics in setting expectations and parameters which impact significantly on what becomes ‘known’ and how. As such, the chapters in this book also seek to draw out the crucial relationship between power dynamics within the academy and the production of knowledge. By illuminating the macro and micro processes which underpin and enable the generation of research within universities, their central role in shaping the construction and promotion of knowledge becomes visible. Spilling the beans The lack of attention given to the workings of power within higher education institutions reflects the difficulties that we as academics face in discussing topics which threaten or undermine our own (often precarious) place in the hierarchy. Decoding the unspoken and evolving nature of these power dynamics constitutes a major part of our job, yet our experiences and insights tend to be kept to our selves or confined to staff rooms and corridors. We rarely hold back when critiquing higher education policy and practice in the abstract, but drawing attention to the academic power plays we ourselves are engaged in is infinitely more risky. Most of us have witnessed and or experienced unethical behaviour and misuse of power that is sanctioned and sometimes even compelled by the structures and mechanics of higher education institutions. Some of us also worry that we are complicit in these dubious operations, or at the very least unchallenging of actions that trouble our conscience. Often though we value and enjoy the power we hold, feel we manage it responsibly and seek to augment it. Our aim in writing this book is to critically reflect on the way power relations within universities are actively navigated. We draw heavily on our own experiences in order to highlight the various ways in which complexities and contradictions of power and research practice are managed and practiced in real life situations. As we outline later on in this chapter, writing this book has not been an easy process. For many of us it has felt dangerous and subversive, akin to whistle blowing or washing our dirty linen in public. On embarking on the project many of us realised we were attempting to say the unsayable, and while the chapters provide a valuable insight they have been self censored, not only to protect individuals and careers, but to protect valuable working relationships. Our intension is not to accuse, moan or expose, but instead to explore the dynamic power struggles that we engage with on a day to day basis, and to examine the real implications these have. While there is no escaping power as an interpersonal dynamic, the lack of attention given to what Louise Morely (1999) describes as the micropolitics of academic life has profound consequences for the way it operates. Academia is a highly individualised arena in which we are often isolated from and in competition with our colleagues. At the same time our work is often inter-dependent on that of peers, senior staff such as grant holders and professors, and more junior staff such as secretarial staff, research assistants and research students. As we develop our ‘feel for the academic game’ (Bourdieu 2001) our unreflexive practices may become ever more ruthless as we grapple with the constraints and affordances that flow from the circulation of power in universities. Most academics can recount experiences of being on the wrong end of power. Marginalisation within departments or research teams, unfair allocation of teaching hours and administrative duties, undue pressure to raise external funds and publish in the ‘right’ journals and pilfering of ideas or work are staple academic gripes. But these and many other perceived injustices operate at a complex interpersonal level, making them extremely tricky to discuss. Few academics would position themselves as misusing power. Far more would identify as victims rather than perpetrators of such abuses. Yet whether or not we are prepared to admit it, exclusion, bullying, exploitation and racial and sexual discrimination are widespread in university departments (Abbott, Sapsford and Molloy 2005, Lipsett 2005, Westhues 2005). More often than not such practices go unchallenged, chiefly because there is no safe method to recognise and confront them. By bringing these issues out into the open and highlighting their complexity we hope to initiate a more honest and inclusive debate. The prevailing silence on the management of power dynamics in the day to day running of university departments has much broader political as well as personal consequences. The power relations that characterise higher education in the UK profoundly impact upon what becomes ‘known’, how and by whom. As Bourdieu (2001) argued universities were fundamentally designed to reinforce and reproduce existing structures by legitimising and promoting elite understandings, practices and values. From this perspective, institutional power structures are regulatory in that they work to preserve the status quo in society. At a visible structural level policies and procedures inform and justify the university hierarchy, but despite equal opportunities checks and balances, white, middle class men continue to occupy the most powerful positions in academia. This inevitably impacts on the kind of knowledge that is produced and valued. The chapters in this book extend current perspectives on power, knowledge and the academy by integrating understandings of institutional and interpersonal dynamics, thereby highlighting the politics of knowledge production. The micropolitics of an edited collection Perhaps inevitably, the production of this book has been characterised by our own hyper-awareness of issues of power in shaping the process and construction of this final version. Reflections on how we formulated the idea, secured a publishing contract and produced this edited collection effectively illustrate the kinds of macro and micro dynamics discussed further in the chapters. In order to demonstrate what we mean by micropolitics we will attempt to give a candid account of how power was exercised, resisted and managed during the course of writing this book. We begin by contextualising the project and our research group, outlining the structural and interpersonal framework we are located within. We then reveal the particular concerns and issues that were encountered and how they were (not always satisfactorily) dealt with, before we introduce the specific chapters that make up the book. The Women’s Workshop Following on from previous collective work, this book has been authored by members of the Women’s Workshop, an established research group with a history of exploring critical issues around feminist ethics and research dilemmas. Previous publications have included Ethics in Qualitative Research (eds Melanie Mauthner, Maxine Birch, Julie Jessop and Tina Miller, 2002) and Feminist Dilemmas in Qualitative Research: Public Knowledge and Private Lives (eds Jane Ribbens and Rosalind Edwards 1998). The group also produced a Special Issue on researching private life as part of the Women’s Studies International Forum in 1995. Originally founded as a PhD support group for women studying family and household issues, the workshop has evolved over the years as original members moved up the hierarchy and new members at various stages of their careers joined. We currently have 23 research active, female academics from England and Scotland on our mailing list, with our disciplinary backgrounds spanning sociology, psychology, education, geography, social policy, health studies, social work, anthropology, childhood studies and criminology. Not all of us are able to attend monthly meetings regularly but we share a broad interest in qualitative research on family and intimacy. Ostensibly the aim of the group is to provide a space for members to present and discuss their work. However the last few years have seen workshop meetings focus more explicitly on particular publishing projects, a move that to some extent excludes those members not able to contribute. The last edited collection by Women’s Workshop (Ethics in Qualitative Research) appeared to have been well received. Positive book reviews and comments drew attention, not only to the content of the book, but also the fact that it was written by a feminist collective. We were congratulated and envied by our colleagues for being part of such a stable, committed, supportive and productive group. While this praise was welcome and not entirely undeserved it provoked slight pangs of guilt in many of the contributors. Production of the book had been characterised by discord, dissatisfaction and hurt feelings among the group as well as pleasure, accomplishment and pride. These more negative experiences were private and known only to the group members, while our public image was of a harmonious feminist collective. Those who were group members when the previous book (Feminist Dilemmas in Qualitative Research) was produced remember similar upsets and difficulties alongside a more general sense of achievement. On reading these two books there is little trace left of the arguments, pressures, negotiations and compromises constituting their construction. As with most academic work the messy, slippery, convoluted nature of its construction is polished out of existence. Yet these underlying dynamics are fundamental to the finished product. They act as unseen parameters within which research projects, articles, books and ultimately academic careers are developed. Reflections on this theme, combined with informal discussions in the workshop about the intricacies and perversities of climbing the greasy academic pole, sparked the idea for this edited collection on power relations in universities. It was proposed that we explore how the everyday process of negotiating institutional power relations generates ethical and political dilemmas for academic researchers. How should hierarchical working relationships be managed and what impact does this have on the research process? To what extent do institutionally ingrained conventions and practices shape what becomes known, and what are the personal consequences of challenging them? Can the mechanisms of academic career progression be reconciled with broader ethical and feminist principles? While many of us were enthusiastic about this new venture, concerns were raised about initiating another project that would set book contributors apart from the wider group. At the time, however, meetings were sparsely attended and dominated by those of us keen to develop another edited collection. A decision was taken to pursue a publishing contract whilst also retaining space for members to bring unrelated pieces of work for discussion. In practice this has meant that for the past year or so Workshop meetings have been almost exclusively devoted to this editorial book. As with all aspects of academic life, proposing and initiating a book about power relations in universities is itself characterised by the exercise of power. Negotiations and issues As the then convenor of the group, Val was keen to see the project get off the ground and wrote a book proposal which was circulated to the group for comments. At this stage ideas for chapters were discussed at Workshop meetings and a more general call for chapter abstracts was sent round. But before we could progress further important decisions had to be made about how we would organise the process of writing and editing. Some group members felt we should explore a more collective approach and co-write the book together as the Women’s Workshop. Others expressed concern about how this would work in practice. This debate took place at a time when many members were over worked, stressed and unable to make regular meetings. Few felt able to make the commitment that would be required to work in such a close and intensive way. Also, many of us could not imagine how the delicate and often precarious process of co-writing would work extended across such a large group, particularly in the context of ever increasing pressures on academic staff. It was anticipated that work loads would end up falling unevenly, causing resentment and denying credit to those who took on most responsibility. Being able to point to named publications has particular significance in the UK since the introduction of the Research Assessment Exercise (RAE) (see Chapter Eight) which rates academic performance on this basis. Worries were also expressed about how we would negotiate existing power differences within the group. Would a PhD student feel confident in asserting their views to an established professor? Would newer members feel less able to contribute? These issues were complicated by interlinked working relationships across the group. Some members had been, or still were supervised by/supervisors of others, while many of the group have worked and written together in the past. It was eventually decided that these dynamics were best suited to a more traditional approach involving an editor and named chapters. Having written the initial book proposal it was decided that Val should take on the role of editor. Not wanting to shoulder this alone she approached Helen to act as a co-editor, mainly because she felt confident of their ability to work well together. By this point nine abstracts for chapters had been written by individuals and pairs and all were included in the proposal that was sent to publishers. Initially we returned to the company that published our last two edited collections, but we were told there was no market for this kind of work and advised instead to write text book on ‘how to get a PhD’. An approach to a smaller publisher was similarly disappointing. Our response was to adopt a more strategic method drawing on contacts we had made in the publishing industry. At the time Helen had recently published a book through Palgrave, and was able to pitch the book to the then commissioning editor. Having received broadly positive and helpful comments on the proposal from reviewers we were offered a contract. Although we were very pleased to be able to move ahead, one of the reviewers drew our attention to the fact that none of our original chapters focused on the issue of ethnicity in academia. All of the active members of the group at the time were white and we had failed to critically reflect on our own whiteness. Our ideas for chapters inevitably explored issues that impacted upon our day to day lives, and as white academics, for whom our whiteness was invisible, we did not view ourselves as ‘raced’ or belonging to ethnic groups. To leave out an issue that is so central to power dynamics in universities felt unforgivable and we decided that an additional chapter on the subject must be included. During this time Kanwal Mand and Susie Weller joined the group and were more immediately attuned to the way ethnicity impacts on their roles as researchers. Just as their chapter was included, another chapter was withdrawn when a member started a new job and felt unable to continue her commitment to the group. Having secured our publishing contract our thoughts turned in earnest to producing the book. More serious negotiations began around who would be involved in writing individual chapters and exactly how they would be written. Everyone wanting to take part in the book was able to find a role, although this had not always been the case in past projects. Minor upsets occurred in the process of adopting writing partners. Most members actively sought to co-write, while some more reluctantly included others in an attempt to embrace a more collective approach. It was established that named authors would take responsibility for chapters, with drafts read and commented on by all group members. But on facing the actual prospect of writing about highly sensitive subjects, practical and ethical constraints loomed large. While important, much of what we wanted to say was personal, challenging and potentially hurtful. We soon realised that we would be restricted to describing the tip of a micropolitical iceberg. Given that our aim was to illuminate interpersonal and structural machinations rather than point the finger at individuals (or each other), we each developed different strategies to avoid implicating or exposing others and ourselves. For obvious reasons we are unable to go into details about this, beyond our acknowledged use of pseudonyms, generalisations, and drawing on anonymous experiences of group members. In spite of our efforts, and the significance we attach to this project, we have left much unsaid simply because we do not feel safe enough or ruthless enough to articulate it. Inevitably though, ‘is that supposed to mean me?’ conversations were a feature of some of our meetings, alongside much unspoken speculation. Several of us were forced to drastically alter plans for our chapters because we were unable to describe incidents or issues in a format that avoided identification of those involved. Many of us still feel we are taking a risk in writing our chapters, making this a difficult but enormously satisfying book to produce. Editorial dynamics As the book progressed our role as editors came more to the fore. Neither of us has acted in this capacity before and we were unsure about how, when and to what extent to exercise our editorial power. The fact that we were members of a feminist workshop writing about power dynamics made this uncertainty particularly acute. Deadlines for first drafts were set in agreement with the group, but hardly any members were able to meet them. At this point our lack of power became only too evident. The rigors of the academic year were impacting heavily on group members and the RAE was looming. More senior members were being pressured to prioritise work that would generate high status publications, and were told participation in this edited collection would count for little. As they speculated about whether they could sustain their commitment, we wondered whether we could sustain the book as a whole. As first drafts began arriving Workshop meetings were scheduled to discuss and give feedback to contributors. Not all members could attend these meetings and so we felt a responsibility as editors to provide detailed written comments. Some drafts came in a relatively polished format while others were in note form and clearly required considerable work. By issuing our comments we were to some extent imposing our own vision of the book onto contributors. This was further complicated by our dual status as editors and chapter co-writers, giving us extensive control over our own chapters. Again though, our power to shape the content of the book was limited. Our comments were not always accepted or appreciated, while some co-writers were themselves engaged in a power struggle over the direction of their chapters. As the deadline for the manuscript to be delivered to the publishers lunged into view, we found ourselves waiting on second drafts and as well as a significant number of first drafts. We ourselves were subject to significant work pressures and as a result we contacted the publishers and extended our deadline by 6 months. As our new delivery date approached we spent considerable time negotiating with individual authors over chapter content, deadlines and in some cases over whether it would be possible for the chapter to be written in time. We had been informed by the publisher that the book would not be out in time for the RAE cut-off point if we pushed the delivery date back any further. While this did not affect more senior members, some in the group were depending on their chapters as RAE submissions. Eventually we reached a point where all but two second drafts had been written, and we began to feel more confident that the book would actually be completed. At this stage we took an editorial decision not to ask for any more amendments. Time pressures, our personal workloads and respect for the contributors own choices underpinned this move. In short, our editorial style has been tentative and light handed for a number of reasons. These include uncertainty, the nature of the topic in hand, a commitment to working as collectively as possible and our own job related pressures. We have been criticised by some in the group for not providing enough guidance and failing to enforce universal deadlines. We are just grateful that we have managed to support the book through to publication. We also wonder if, realistically, it would have possible to edit the book without causing some offence or eliciting criticism. We have tried to reflect honestly about the micropolitics of producing this book, but as with all aspects of this topic there is much that has to remain secret. Keeping things to a broad level, we can admit that the process has been characterised by spats between co-authors, misunderstandings, indignation and frustration as well as acute anxiety about revealing too much. Nevertheless, we have managed to work through this to produce what we feel is important and original book We would like to acknowledge all the help and support we received from workshop members who were not able to author chapters. Particularly Jean Duncombe whose contribution in the early stages of the book was much appreciated, and Jane Franklin who joined the group towards the end of the books production and provided valuable feedback on chapters.. Outline of the book In the chapters that follow authors explore aspects of power that characterise academic relationships and career structures, impacting on the essential business of knowledge production in universities. While all of the chapters are united by a feminist perspective and an understanding of power as an inevitable feature of everyday life they span a variety of topics and draw on a range of insights and theories. In terms of the chapter order, our initial intention was for the book to move from a focus on micro relations to an exploration of more macro structural issues. However, during the writing of the book it became clear that this would be imposing a false distinction. Each chapter has micro and macro implications, regardless of the extent to which these are explicitly addressed by the authors. Nevertheless we begin the book with a sustained focus on interpersonal dynamics. In Chapter One, Helen Lucey and Chrissie Rogers take a psychosocial perspective on experience to explore some of the unconscious and less rational dimensions of relationships between research students and their supervisors. They draw on three case-studies to examine the power of unconscious processes in the shaping of this particular institutional dynamic. Through a psychoanalytically inflected analysis they illuminate some of the ways in which internal, personal worlds merge with and mutually form external, institutional worlds and in this way address some of the gaps in current accounts that advise students and supervisors and that assume an entirely rational subject. In Chapter Two Kathyn Almack and Harrie Churchill also explore the dynamics of carrying out PhD research, reflecting upon and analysing the shifting power positions they experienced during this time. They note how research students may find themselves in a complex position involving simultaneous experiences of being powerful and powerless. Based on personal narratives this chapter draws out some of the contradictions that shaped their successful journeys through doctoral research in the UK. In particular the chapter focuses on the role of subjectivity, status and resources in the working out and maintenance of power relations. They conclude by discussing how these dynamics have considerable implications for the control over and direction of the research produced. Kanwal Mand and Susie Weller speak from the perspective of contract researchers in Chapter Three. They explore the way many female academics carve out a ‘niche’ which involves working with and sometimes in their own ethnic and cultural communities. Drawing on their own and others’ experiences they demonstrate how such ‘niches’ can be both enabling and disabling. Their nuanced account examines the workings of broader power dynamics around gender and ethnicity, and highlights the way in which inequalities in academia are often sustained through subtle micropolitical processes. Their experiences as Asian and white British researchers are contrasted to show how ethnic minority academics are more likely to become trapped in such niches, while white researchers might be seen as more flexible. Since writing this chapter the real material consequences of this have been explicitly demonstrated. While Susie’s contract to research children-centred issues has been extended, Kanwal was made redundant in light of their being no further funding available for research on South Asian familes. In Chapter Four Linda Bell and Maxine Birch examine the way processes of power within academia shift between acquired academic knowledge, and ‘practitioner’ knowledge. In particular they highlight the way practitioner qualifications have become more ‘powerful’ in commanding high status, with Government policy demanding higher qualification standards of many public sector careers. Via a discussion of the centrality of ‘writing’, they explore the many tensions associated with educational standards in the public sector. In the context of widening access to higher education they consider their own work trajectories to explore the impact these changes have had on their academic careers. Melanie Mauthner and Linda Bell consider how power relationships in research teams influence project methodology and findings in Chapter Five. Drawing on knowledge of sociological, health, social care and education research they highlight issues of working collaboratively during all stages of research. They also focus on intersections of career status, teamwork experiences and reflexivity, examining how team members share out tasks stemming from their investment in teamwork and awareness of rights and responsibilities. They conclude by offering a framework for researchers to consider the effects of power dynamics in teams during the life of a project. Val Gillies and Pam Alldred focus on the dynamics of social networking as an integral part of being an academic in Chapter Six. Exploring their own and others’ experiences they show how implicit rules of academic socialising are central to career development. While they acknowledge the positive value of sharing ideas, collaborating and generating support, they also explore the less benign aspects of academic networking to show how the currency of ‘social capital’ can sustain a distinct, exclusionary culture. They argue that confined circles of power and influence socially produced within academia ultimately ensure a shared interest in preserving the status quo. In Chapter Seven Jane Ribbens McCarthy critically examines the process of conducting a literature review to explore the power issues involved in the interpretation and representation of academic knowledge. Based on her recent experience of undertaking a commissioned review on the topic of ‘loss, bereavement and young people’ she describes a personal journey, during which she uncovered the various ways in which ‘facts’ can be used to support specific arguments, regardless of original context. In this highly reflexive and autobiographical account Jane reveals the complex issues she faced and their implications in terms of individual and academic power to select and shape what is counted as ‘knowledge’ in any given field. In Chapter Eight, Pam Alldred and Tina Miller give an analysis of the more formal and abstract relations of power embedded in the UK Research Assessment Exercise. They look at the ways in which practices which were intended only to measure research productivity themselves produce and sustain hierarchies regarding types of research and models of knowledge production. They demonstrate that what appears to be a rational, bureaucratic, measuring exercise is, in practice, a variable and shifting endeavour that rests on highly subjective ‘measures’. They draw upon their own and colleagues’ experiences of trying to make sense of and navigate the RAE and the enforced requirement to produce certain types of ‘output’ in certain types of publication for RAE purposes. They argue that as academics become increasingly self-conscious of performance indicators and, individually more visible through them, we are more tightly disciplined by them. We end the book with an exploration of inter-subjective and institutional dynamics at the other end of the academic hierarchy. In Chapter Nine, Natasha Mauthner and Rosalind Edwards explore the tensions in attempting to be a feminist research group manager, where the very idea of a feminist manager has been termed an oxymoron. They address the nature of contemporary higher education and how it forms the contextual underpinnings of institutional power dynamics in which attempts at feminist research management take place. In particular they consider the dilemmas that arise when trying to practice research management in a ‘feminist’ spirit within an individualistic system that fosters competition rather than cooperation and celebrates individual rather than collective successes. While each of the chapters explore very different themes from very different perspectives all articulate similar experiences of exercising, resisting or subverting power in an academic contexts. We are not pretending that the power struggles described in this book can ever be overcome or transcended. But by discussing them openly we aim to create space for a more reflexive and ethical management of the issues involved. In particular we hope our own experiences will provide a resource for those currently navigating academic careers and wrestling with similar problems. Writing this book has certainly proved useful and enlightening for us. References Abbott, P, Sapsford, R and Molloy, L. (2005) Statistics for Equal Opportunities in Higher Education: Report To HEFCE, SHEFC, HEFCW, Glasgow, Caledonian Centre for Equality and Diversity. Bourdieu, P (2001) Homo Academicus, Oxford: Polity. Foucault, M. (1978) History of Sexuality Vol 1. Random House Lipsett, A. (2005) Bullying Rife Across Campus, Times Higher Education Supplement, 16th September. Mahony, P. and Zmroczek, C. (eds) (1997) Class Matters: ‘Working-class’ Women’s Perspectives - on Social Class, London: Taylor and Francis. Malina, D. and Maslin-Prothero, S. (eds) (1998) Surviving the Academy: Feminist Perspective, London: Falmer Press. Mauthner, M., Birch, M., Jessop, J. and Miller, T. (eds) (2002) Ethics in Qualitative Research, London Sage. L. Morley and V. Walsh (eds) (1996) Breaking Boundaries: Women in Higher Education, London: Taylor and Francis. Morely, L. (1999) Organising feminisms. The Micropolitics of the academy, New York: St Martins Press. Ribbens, J and Edwards R. (eds) Feminist Dilemmas in Qualitative Research, public knowledge and private lives, London: Sage. Westhues, K. (2005) Workplace mobbing in academe, New York: Edwin Mellen Press.