Chapter Five
5.7 Mentors and Role Models
The Women-in-Research questionnaire asked whether women academics saw themselves as having had mentors and role models during their careers, what positions these mentors/role models occupied, and the gender of the mentors/role models. As no definition of either terms were offered or sought, however, it is not clear to what extent respondents shared a common understanding.
Just under half of respondents indicated that they had a particular mentor. Black and White women reported similar levels of mentoring, but differences were apparent across types of institution. Women at HWUs' (49.4 percent) were slightly more likely than women at HBUs' (43.5 percent) to report having been mentored. Two thirds of mentors were male, and 38.7 percent were (or had been) the respondent's supervisor. The next most common source of mentorship (about a quarter) was the respondent's head of department.
44.9 percent of respondents pointed to a having had a role model. As with mentors, supervisors featured prominently as role model. Head of Department, however, played a lesser role, while colleagues within and outside respondents' department featured more prominently as role models than as mentors. It would seem that while supervisors play an important role as both role models and mentors, in other relationships the mentoring and role modelling functions are more differentiated. Such differences are underscored by the gender of mentors/role models; while only about a third of mentors were women, nearly half of the role models were women.
Finally perceptions of role modelling were divided along racial lines. Black and White women reported similar levels of mentoring, but differed in their perception of role models: Overall, 54 percent of black respondents saw themselves as having had a role model, as opposed to only 41.2 percent of White respondents. The tables below indicate differences across race groups at the national and KZN levels as pertains to role models and mentors.
5.7.1 Mentors
Overall African Indian Coloured White
Mentor
KZN Nat KZN Nat KZN Nat KZN Nat KZN Nat
Yes 41.7 44.5 65.0 47.7 46.3 39.6 33.3 33.3 30.8 44.7
(26) (82) (25) (36) (I) (10) (33) (386)
No 58.3 55.5 35.0 52.3 53.7 60.4 66.7 66.7 69.2 55.3
(14) (90) (29) (55) (2) (20) (74) (477)
Table 5.43 Mentors
Table 5.43 shows that overall, the trend both nationally and in KZN is that the majority of respondents do not have mentors. This trend is similar across the Coloured, Indian and White race groups where only a third have mentors. However, almost two thirds of African respondents in KZN have mentors as opposed to 47.7 percent nationally.
5.7.2 Position of Mentor
Table 5.44 shows that the majority of respondents indicated that their mentor is also their supervisor with the percentage being higher in KZN. Almost 20 percent have indicated that their mentor is also their HoD.
Table 5.44 PosItIOn of Mentor
Position of Overall African Indian Coloured White
mentor Nat KZN Nat KZN Nat KZN Nat KZN Nat KZN
Supervisor 38.8 45 35.5 42.3 51.4 54.2 30.0 38.5 41.4
(27) (11 ) (18) (13) (3) (135) (12)
HOD 19.1 21.2 19.7 19.2 17.1 16.7 30.0 18.8 27.6
(15) (5) (6) (4) (3) (66) (8)
Colleague (dept) 14.6 12.5 10.5 7.7 14.3 12.5 10.0 15.7 17.2
(8) (2) (5) (3) (1) (55) (5)
Colleague (Inst) 10.4 10 21.1 30.8 20.0 8.8
( 16) (8) (2) (31)
Colleague 14.2 7.5 13.2 11.4 12.5 10.0 10.0 14.8 6.9
(other) (10) (4) (3) (l) (I) (52) (2)
Other 2.9 3.7 5.7 4.2 3.4 6.9
(2) (1) (12) (2)
..
Further, At least half the Indian respondents both nationally and in KZN indicated that their mentor is also their supervisor. This trend is followed by at least a third of African and White respondents at the national level and at least 40 percent each in KZN. It is significant to note that at least 27 percent of White respondents in KZN indicated that their HOD is their mentor. Also, at least 30 percent of African respondents indicated that their mentor is a colleague from their institution.
5.7.3 Gender of Mentor
Mentor's Overall African Indian Coloured White
Gender KZN Nat KZN Nat KZN Nat KZN Nat KZN Nat
Female 39.2 35.8 53.8 44.4 40.0 41.7 40.0 28.1 33.3
(14) (36) (10) (15) (4) (9) (126)
Male 60.7 64.2 46.2 55.6 60.0 58.3 100 60.0 71.9 66.7
(12) (45) (15) (21) (1) (6) (23) (252)
Table 5.45 Gender of Mentor
Table 5.45 shows that overall, the majority of mentors are male. However, in KZN almost 40 percent of mentors are female. Across the race groups, almost 60 percent Indian, Coloured and White respondents have male mentors. However, in KZN there is a higher percentage of African respondents who have women mentors. This is significant in that black women who have succeeded in academia generally feel it their duty to 'give back' to their communities, as evidenced in the interviews with the experienced black women academics in KZN. There is this natural tendency to build the capacities of the novice women academics.
5.7.4 Role Models
Data in table 5.46 shows that the majority of respondents at both the national and KZN level indicated that they do not have a role model.
The trend is similar to Coloured and White respondents, where at least two thirds have role models. However, the majority of African respondents at both the national and KZN levels indicated that they do have a role model. Also, at least 53 percent of Indian respondents in KZN do have a role model as opposed to 43.8 percent nationally.
Table 5.46 Role Models
Overall African Indian Coloured White
KZN Nat KZN Nat KZN Nat KZN Nat KZN Nat
Yes 43.1 42.4 73.8 58.3 53.7 43.8 33.3 33.3 25.7 39.2
(31) (105) (29) (39) (1) (10) (27) (332)
No 56.9 57.6 26.2 41.7 46.3 56.2 66.7 66.7 74.3 60.8
(11) (75) (25) (50) (2) (20) (78) (516)
5.7.5 Gender of Role Model
Role Model's Overall African Indian Coloured White
Gender KZN Nat KZN Nat KZN Nat KZN Nat KZN Nat
Female 54.7 49 46.7 58.8 51.7 56.4 40.0 69.2 45.3
(14) (60) ( 15) (22) (4) (18) (146)
Male 45.3 51 53.3 41.2 48.3 43.6 100 60.0 30.8 54.7
(16) (42) ( 14) (17) (I) (6) (8) (176)
Table 5.47 Gender of Role model
Table 5.47 shows that the majority of respondents have women role models but there is a higher percentage in KZN than nationally. At least 50 percent of Indian respondents both nationally and in KZN have women role models. For African respondents, 58.8 percent at the national level have women role models as opposed to 46.7 percent in KZN. This trend is reversed for White respondents where 69.2 percent in KZN have women role models as opposed to 45.3 percent nationally.
5.7.6 Position of Role Model
Table 5.48 PosItIOn of Role Model
Position of role Overall African Indian Coloured White
model KZN Nat KZN Nat KZN Nat KZN Nat KZN Nat
Supervisor 30.5 28.5 29.0 25.0 28.6 28.9 100.0 30.0 31.8 29.5
(9) (25) (8) (11 ) (1) (3) (7) (90)
HOD 18.3 18.1 29.0 27.0 14.3 18.4 10.0 9.1 15.4
(9) (27) (4) (7) (1) (2) (47)
Colleague (dept) 17.1 18.5 12.9 15.0 21.4 21.1 10.0 18.2 19.7
(4) (15) (6) (8) (I) (4) (60)
Colleague (inst.) 7.3 8.4 9.7 11.0 7.1 5.3 10.0 4.5 7.9
(3) (11) (2) (2) (I) (I) (24)
Colleague (other) 2.2 21.4 16.1 17.0 17.9 18.4 30.0 36.4 23.0
(5) (17) (5) (7) (3) (8) (70)
Other 4.9 5.1 3.2 5.0 10.7 7.9 10.0 4.6
(1) (5) (3) (3) (1) ( 14)
..
From table 5.48, almost 30 percent indicated that their role model is also their supervisor.
At least 18 percent have indicated that their role model is also their HOD or departmental colleague. Nationally, at least 21 percent have indicated that their role model is a colleague from another institution. The majority of African respondents indicated that the position of their role model was that of supervisor, HOD or a colleague from another institution. The majority of Indian and White respondents indicated that their role model was their supervisor, followed by a colleague from their department or a colleague from another institution. The trends are similar both nationally and in KZN.
5.8 Child-Care and Maternity Leave
5.8.1 Child Care
Overall African Indian Coloured White
KZN Nat KZN Nat KZN Nat KZN Nat KZN Nat
Yes 56 21.1 11.1 10.9 69.7 67.3 100 47.8 69.1 33.2
(3) (15) (23) (37) (1) (11 ) (38) (178)
No 44 67.9 88.9 89.1 30.3 32.7 52.2 30.9 66.8
(24) (122) (10) (18) (12) (17) (358)
Table 5.49 Child care
As evident from table 5.49, almost two-thirds of respondents at the national level do not have child care support as opposed to 44 percent in KZN. Only about 11 percent African respondents both nationally and in KZN have child care support. Almost two thirds of Indian respondents have child-care support. 69.1 percent of White respondents in KZN have childcare support as opposed to a third at the nationallevel.
5.8.2 Maternity Leave (KZN vs National)
70 - - , - - - -
60 50
Q)
~ 40
-
c:Q)(,)4; 30
Q.
20 10
o
Highly inadequate
Inadequate Adequate Highly
adequate Figure 5.4 Maternity Leave (KZN vs National)
The opinion with regards to maternity leave among KZN respondents compares favourably with the response nationally. Figure 5.4 shows that the majority of the respondents find maternity leave adequate. At least 21 percent indicate that maternity leave is inadequate.
5.8.3 Maternity leave by race and region
Maternity African Indian Coloured White
Leave KZN Nat KZN Nat KZN Nat KZN Nat
Highly 5.0 12.8 7.7 9.1 10.0 14.0 8.3
inadequate (1) (15) (2) (4) (2) (6) (38)
Inadequate 29.2 28.2 26.9 31.8 20.0 23.3 18.3
(7) (33) (7) (14) (4) (10) (84)
Adequate 55.0 53.8 65.4 59.1 100 50.0 51.2 61.4
11 ) (63) (17) (26) (I) (10) (22) (281)
Highly adequate 5.0 5.1 20.0 11.6 12.0
(1) (6) (4) (5) (55)
Table 5.50 Matermty leave by race and region
Table 5.50 shows that the majority of respondents across the race groups feel that maternity leave is adequate. Almost a third of African and Indian respondents feel that maternity leave is inadequate or highly inadequate.
5.9. Infra-Structure, Service and Information Technology 5.9.1 Access to Computer facilities
Application Overall African Indian Coloured White
type Nat KZN Nat KZN Nat KZN Nat KZN Nat KZN
Office sole 49.7 42.4 58.2 46.5 45.4 44.6 74.2 66.7 79.8 77.7
(121) (20) (44) (25) (23) (2) (741) (87)
Office shared 5.3 2.5 15.4 2.3 6.2 1.8 6.5 6.5 5.4
(32) (1) (6) (1) (2) (60) (6)
Dept 7.8 10.7 12.5 18.6 27.8 28.6 3.2 9.9 8.9
(26) (8) (27) ( 16) (1) (92) (10)
On campus 3.6 6.9 7.0 9.3 15.5 21.4 6.5 33.3 3.8 4.5
( 15) (4) (15) ( 12) (2) (1) (35) (5)
No access 2.3 4.1 12.5 20.9 3.1 5.4 1.6 0.9
(26) (9) (3) (3) (15) (1)
Home 30.5 31.6 17.8 18.6 50.5 58.9 35.5 50.8 52.7
(37) (8) (49) (33) (11 ) (472) (59)
Other 0.7 1.6 1.4 4.7 2.1 0.9 2.7
(3) (2) (2) (8) (3)
Table 5.51 Access to Computer facilities
Table 5.51 shows that the majority of respondents have access to a sole office computer although nationally this percentage is almost 50 percent as opposed to 42.4 percent in KZN. At least 30 percent have their own computer at home. At the national level, almost 80 percent of White respondents have sole access to a computer at work and at least half have home computers. More than a third of the Coloured respondents have sole access to an office computer and at least a third have a home computer. The trend at the KZN level is similar for White and Coloured respondents. Nationally, 58.2 percent of African
respondents have sole access to their office computer as opposed to 46.5 percent in KZN.
Almost 18 percent have a home computer. For the Indian respondents, 45 percent have sole access to an office computer and 28 percent have access to a departmental computer.
At least 50 percent have a home computer. This trend is the same both nationally and in KZN.
5.9.2 Computer Facilities
Table 5.52 Computer FaCIlItIes
Application type Overall African Indian Coloured White
Nat KZN Nat KZN Nat KZN Nat KZN Nat KZN
E-mail 23 22.6 61.0 48.6 75.0 76.8 90.3 100 85.4 90.0
(114) (18) (72) (43) (28) (3) (785) (99)
Word processing 27.3 27.2 93.0 89.2 93.8 94.6 96.8 100 97.0 97.3
(174) (33) (90) (53) (30) (3) (891) (107)
Database 7.7 6.5 11.8 5.4 22.9 23.2 16.1 33.3 31.0 28.2
(22) (2) (22) (13) (5) (1) (285) (31)
Spreadsheet 8.8 8.3 22.5 24.3 30.2 30.4 35.5 100 32.6 28.3
(42) (9) (29) ( 17) (11 ) (3) (300) (31 )
Presentation 6.4 7.6 9.6 10.8 15.6 30.4 19.4 100 26.3 28.2
( 18) (4) ( 15) (17) (6) (3) (242) (31)
WWW 14.7 14.3 22.5 18.9 56.3 57.1 45.2 66.7 57.5 56.4
(42) (7) (54) (32) (14) (2) (528) (62)
Statistics 4.1 5.7 8.6 13.5 14.6 21.4 16.1 66.7 15.8 20.0
(16) (5) (14) (12) (5) (2) (145) (22)
Qualitative 1.4 2.2 4.8 8.1 2.1 1.8 5.7 10.9
(9) (3) (2) (1) (52) (12)
GIS 0.6 0.8 1.6 1.0 1.8 2.4 4.5
(3) (I) (I) (22) (5)
Graphics 5.1 3.8 10.2 2.7 12.5 10.7 9.7 33.3 20.3 18.2
(19) (I) (12) (6) (3) (I) ( 187) (20)
Other 0.6 0.7 3.2 10.8 3. I 3.2 1.8 0.9
(6) (4) (3) (1) (17) (1)
...
Table 5.52 shows that overall, 23 percent of the respondents have access to e-mail, 27 percent to word-processing software and 14 percent to the WWW.This trend is similar nationally and in KZN. However, across race groups, there is lower percentage of African respondents who have access to Email and the WWW.
5.9.3 Availability of Library resources and support
From the data in tables 5.53 and 5.54 below, the majority of respondents at the national level rate the availability of library resources and support as "good" or "very good".
However, almost half the respondents in KZN rate the availability of books and journals as
"poor" and about a third also rate inter-library loans, computer searches and staff assistance as "poor".
Resources Not % Poor % Good % Very % N/A
available ~ood
Journals 84 6.8 425 34.3 441 35.6 289 23.3 84
Books 65 5.2 426 34.3 475 38.2 277 22.3 80
Inter-library loans 19 1.6 217 17.8 564 46.4 416 34.2 107
Library staff 23 1.9 228 18.7 508 41.6 462 37.8 102
assistance
Computer searches 56 4.7 244 20.4 518 43.4 376 31.5 129
Table 5.53 Availability of Library resources and support (National)
Table 5.54 AvaI1ablhty of LIbrary resources and support (KZN)
Resources Not % Poor % Good % Very % N/A
available ~ood
Journals 17 7.9 103 48.1 81 37.9 13 6.1 9
Books 10 4.7 106 50.0 80 37.7 16 7.5 11
Inter-library loans 2 1.0 59 28.6 106 51.5 39 18.9 17
Library staff 7 3.4 66 31.7 89 42.8 46 22.1 15
assistance
Computer searches 17 8.4 60 29.6 97 47.8 29 14.3 20
..
5.10. Attitudes towards Research
5.10.1 Further training required in Research-related skills
An overwhelming 91 percent of KZN respondents answered In the affirmative to this question. Almost three-quarters (74 percent) were very interested in how to obtain funding, 69 percent were very interested in receiving training around producing publications, 58 percent required development of presentation skills. Only 54 percent felt that they required training in the area of data collection.
5.10.2 Reasons for doing Research
Reason Strongly % Disagree % Agree % Strongly % N/A
Disagree Ae:ree
Formal Qualification 194 17.8 165 15.1 407 37.3 325 29.8 232
Personal fulfilment 16 1.3 53 4.4 451 37.6 679 56.6 124
Like research 38 3.2 100 8.4 519 43.7 532 44.7 134
Financial gain 231 21.1 329 30.1 386 35.3 147 13.4 230
Publish 36 3.0 104 8.8 496 42.0 546 46.2 141
Promotion 97 8.6 189 16.7 486 42.9 361 31.9 190
Job Security 86 7.4 179 15.5 525 45.4 367 31.7 166
Professional interest 9 0.8 45 3.8 480 40.3 656 55.1 133
Pressure from dep. 249 22.4 411 37.0 326 29.3 125 11.3 212
Pressure from inst. 188 16.8 346 30.9 410 36.6 177 15.8 202
Social interest 122 10.8 258 22.8 510 45.0 243 21.4 190
Community interest 103 9.0 248 21.7 503 44.0 288 25.2 181
Academic status 98 8.5 181 15.8 510 44.4 360 31.3 174
Empowerment 147 12.9 246 21.6 413 36.2 335 29.4 182
Agent of chancre 73 6.3 161 13.9 430 37.1 495 42.7 164
Produce knowledge 39 3.4 109 9.4 484 41.7 528 45.5 162
Other 2 3.4 7 12.1 49 84.5 1265
Table 5.55 Reasons for doing research (National)
From the data in Table 5.55, it is observed that at least 55 percent undertake research for the personal fulfilment. At least 40 percent either want to publish, like research, view research as an agent of change or feel that research would produce knowledge. Almost a third of the respondents undertake research as part of formal studies, for the purpose of promotion, job security, empowerment or academic status. This trend also prevails at the KZN level as evident from Table 5.56.
Reason Strongly % Disagree % Agree % Strongly % N/A
Disae:ree Ae:ree
Formal Qualification 33 18.3 27 15.0 77 42.8 43 23.9 43
Personal fulfilment 2 1.0 6 2.9 74 35.9 124 60.2 17
Like research I 0.5 7 3.3 95 45.5 106 50.7 14
Financial gain 34 17.9 59 31.1 75 39.5 22 11.6 33
Publish 1 0.5 11 5.4 75 36.9 116 57.1 20
Promotion 14 7.1 41 20.7 85 42.9 58 29.3 25
Job Security 11 5.5 29 14.5 86 43.0 74 37.0 23
Professional interest 2 1.0 9 4.4 65 31.7 129 62.9 18
Pressure from dep. 48 25.4 71 37.6 51 27.0 19 10.1 34
Pressure from inst. 35 18.4 61 32.1 73 38.4 21 11.1 33
Social interest 13 6.6 29 14.8 104 53.1 50 25.5 27
Community interest 8 4.0 31 15.4 98 48.8 64 31.8 22
Academic status 14 7.0 37 18.5 74 37.0 75 37.5 23
Empowerment 19 9.7 37 18.9 76 38.8 64 32.7 27
Agent of change 9 4.4 16 7.9 76 37.4 102 50.2 20
Produce knowledge 4 2.1 12 6.2 69 35.4 109 55.9 29
Other 3 21.4 II 78.6 209
Table 5.56 Reasons for domg research (KZN)
5.10.3 What could be done to facilitate research (by region)
From the data in Table 5.57 below, at least a third of the respondents indicated that more time is needed to facilitate research. At least 14 percent indicated that more funding and departmental/institutional support would facilitate their research productivity.
Table 5.57 What could be done to facIlItate research
Category National KZN
Responses %of Responses %of
responses Responses
Time/workload 393 33.1 75 24.7
Family support 26 1.7 4 1.3
Childcare 5 0.3 1 0.3
Self 57 3.8 J7 5.6
Training 108 7.2 20 6.6
Funding 217 14.6 42 13.8
Career 9 0.6 2 0.7
Resources 127 8.5 38 12.5
DeptlInst. Support 151 10.1 37 12.2
Supervisor 28 1.9 7 2.3
Mentor 54 3.6 18 5.9
Networking 60 4.0 18 5.9
Collaborative Research 36 2.4 7 2.3
Nothing 7 0.5
Positive 17 1.1 2 0.7
Other 95 6.4 16 5.3
..
5.10.4 What could be done to facilitate research (by race and region)
Table 5.58 shows that overall and across the race groups, time/workload is a major constraint in conducting research. Funding and departmental/institutional support are other contributing factors.
Almost a fifth of African respondents require training in order to facilitate research.
Funding is also a major constraint especially amongst the African respondents. Almost a quarter of Indian respondents indicated more departmental/institutional support and improved resources.
Table 5.58 What could be done to facilItate research (by race and regIon)
Cate~ory Overall African Indian Coloured White
Nat KZN Nat KZN Nat KZN Nat KZN Nat KZN
Time/workload 35.5 25.2 35.5 29.4 48.0 54.2 40.7 33.3 63.6 46.9
(55) (10) (36) (26) (11 ) (I) (381 ) (38)
Family support 1.9 1.3 2.6 2.9 1.3 3.5 3.7
(4) (1) (I) (21 ) (3)
Childcare 0.4 0.3 0.6 1.3 2.1 3.7 0.3
(1) (1) (I) (I) (2)
Self 4.1 5.7 6.5 5.9 5.3 4.2 7.0 16.0
(10) (2) (4) (2) (42) (13)
Training 4.4 6.4 22.6 20.6 10.7 10.4 18.5 9.3 8.6
(35) (7) (8) (5) (5) (56) (7)
Funding 15.6 13.7 33.5 29.4 17.3 16.7 25.9 23.4 28.4
(52) (10) (13) (8) (7) (140) (23)
Career 0.7 0.7 3.7 1.3 2.5
(I) (8) (2)
Resources 9.2 12.7 15.5 11.8 24.0 33.3 33.3 66.7 12.4 19.8
(24) (4) (18) (16) (9) (2) (74) (16)
Dept/lnst. support 10.9 11.7 12.9 11.8 24.0 31.3 11.1 17.9 19.8
(20) (4) (18) ( 15) (3) (107) (16)
Supervisor 1.9 2.3 3.9 8.8 2.7 4.2 11.1 2.7 2.5
(6) (3) (2) (2) (3) (16) (2)
Mentor 3.7 5.7 9.0 20.6 2.7 4.2 3.7 33.3 5.7 8.6
(14) (7) (2) (2) (I) (I) (34) (7)
Networking 4.3 6.0 5.8 8.8 5.3 6.3 11.1 7.2 14.8
(9) (3) (4) (3) (3) (43) ( 12)
Collaborative 2.6 2.3 3.2 2.9 6.7 4.2 3.7 4.0 4.9
research (5) (I) (5) (2) (1) (24) (4)
Nothing 0.5 1.3 0.8
(2) (5)
Positive 1.1 0.3 0.6 1.3 2.1 3.7 2.0
(1) (I) (1) (1) (12)
Other 6.9 5.3 11.0 8.8 21.3 14.6 7.4 9.7 7.4
(17) (3).. (16) (7) (2) (58) (6)
5.11. A 'fairer' place -Theorising the Complexities of Academia
As I have already established in earlier chapters, it is highly problematic to generalise about women's position and participation in research and academia, as if it were a coherent and unified whole. The Women-in-Research respondents were from diverse backgrounds, reflecting age, race, parenthood and academic position. However, the general findings show that women are indeed under-represented in the academy with black women in particular, being in a worse position than white women academics.
The picture that emerges from the data shows beyond any doubt that not much has changed since 1993 when Keith Peacock published his findings in: South African Universities: Race and Gender Factors in Employment Patterns: Race and Gender. This could be attributed to the low personnel turnover rate, the small number of women applicants for advertised positions, the problems associated with the weak educational system, perceptions about the capabilities of women, especially black women, selections and recruitment procedures, limited upward mobility and lack of career planning and support or better salaried jobs in industry.
Whilst one can identify a number of factors that account for the under-representation of women in academia and research, the critical issues that came through from these statistics could be summarised as the failure of equal opportunities policies to be effectively translated into equal opportunities practice, the lack of role models and an effective process of mentoring for academic women, the failure of the academy to recognise the primary caregiver status of many academic women, the heavier teaching workload carried by academic women, the lower productivity level (defined in terms of research and publications) of academic women, the greater likelihood of academic men holding doctorate degrees, the system of promotion that identifies and defines productivity in terms which disadvantage academic women, the attitude of academic men in positions of power and decision making in the academy (including the old boys network and homosociability) and finally the operation of practices which privileges the white male middle-class academic and the white female academic.
Research productivity and ultimately, upward mobility, is directly related to the issues of teaching loads, administrative duties and resources. The Women-in-Research respondents show clearly that their involvement in a range of additional responsibilities adversely affects their productivity. These responsibilities often tend to detract from the time and energy required for publishing and research, which are the main criteria that institutions use to assess productivity.
This under-representation is a result of the conflation of power, patronage and prejudice that has resulted in the affirming of white, male academics to positions of authority, leadership and control. Whilst the Women-in-Research respondents did not translate this in any systematic way to the issue of sexism and racism, the contradictory findings, as shown
by the data, revealed a significantly low level of awareness of the phallocentric culture of the institutions. Whilst women do express a concern about patronage, prejudice and discriminatory practices, the findings show that there is a failure to link this in any systematic way to the male-stream culture of the academy.
Infused within these attributes, is the legacy of the apartheid policies that promoted recruitment from within, both institutionally and racially. It is evident from the data that despite the new democracy, very little has changed at the level of practice, thus perpetuating the status quo. Educational policies, although reflecting the prevailing ideologies regarding women in general, tend to be closely linked to the needs of the economy rather than issues of equity. Translated in this way, policies serve the dual purpose of masking the phallocentric and patriarchal relations of male-stream culture and capitalist social relations. It is for this reason that women (and men) find it difficult to understand and internalise the institutional and structural causes of women's marginalization in the world of academia. This has contributed to the way in which women construct their subjectivities and how the sphere of research and academia is perceived and experienced by individual women. This generally complicates any attempts to understand the problems that women face as knowledge producers. The struggle ought not to be set up simply as an antagonistic relationship between men and women but rather as one against the deeper, more insidious, institutionalised male-stream/mainstream culture of the academy. Although many advances have been made in the direction of equity and redress, there is considerable concern about how effectively this is being translated into practice. I revisit the broad findings of this audit in the final chapter, with a view to charting a way forward