Intersectional Perspectives

Overview

While social class exerts a significant influence on the experiences of WCAs, a lesser examined dimension is the intersection of class with other vectors of disadvantage. Intersectionality is a theory coined by Kimberlé Crenshaw (1989) in her critique of US antidiscrimination law and social justice movements. It serves as a crucial tool for illuminating the connections between intersecting inequalities that traditional frameworks of thought often fail to adequately grasp (Crenshaw, 1989; Hill Colins, 1989). Crenshaw challenged the assumption that women are a homogeneous group and highlighted Black women’s unique experiences of both racism and sexism. An autoethnographic account by Akbar (2022) supports this intersectional approach, as he noted that his biography is ‘not as simple as solely identifying as coming from a working class background…it is several complex layers of the dual identities amalgamated into one’ (p. 74). Jones and Maguire (2021) described how the WCA women in their study felt they were often ‘positioned differently by colleagues and students’ (p. 1), compared to other academics. While scholars such as Patricia Hill Collins and Valerie Hey have compellingly argued that WCA women of colour endure an ‘outsider within’ status, being excluded by both gendered and classed hierarchies (Hey, 2003; Hill Collins, 1986). Alongside this, scholars with disabilities from disadvantaged backgrounds described the difficulties of navigating academia (Dolmage, 2017). Chapter Four expands our analysis by exploring the experiences of WCAs when gender, ethnicity, and disability intersect with their class heritage.

Gender

According to higher education statistics agency (HESA data, females accounted for 49% of full-time staff and 66% of part-time staff working in HE during 2021/2022 – although the statistical data demonstrated that female staff members were more likely to be working as non-academic staff (63% of non-academic staff were female, compared with females representing 48% of academic staff). Women continue to be underrepresented at senior levels, holding just 30% of professor positions in the UK in 2021/2022 – although there has been an increase of two percentage points since 2020/2021 (HESA, 2023). Research by Santos and Dang Van Phu (2019) revealed that being female has a negative association with academic rank, even after controlling for many factors such as age, marital status, responsibility for household chores, field of research, whether they have children or hold a PhD or not as well as the percentage of working time spent on teaching and teaching related activities. Gender was not found to be significant when academics (male and female) had children after seniority had been secured (p. 2). There were further examples of gendered inequalities, such as female academics had a lower chance of authoring invited commentaries in medical journals compared with men with similar scientific expertise, seniority, and publication metrics (Thomas et al., 2019). Female scholars in the UK also tend to receive lower research funding compared with their male colleagues (Wijnen et al., 2021) and fewer citations, i.e. articles written by women as primary authors had approximately half the number of citations as those with men as the primary author (Chatterjee & Werner, 2021). This is significant as research impact is often gauged primarily through the number of citations a publication receives. Although this should be examined on a subject level as Borchardt et al. (2018) found that in Chemistry, the importance of a research article is only partly captured by its citation rates.

The COVID-19 pandemic heightened and exacerbated pre-existing gender disparities, resulting in the emergence of the she-cession (Profeta, 2021). The school/childcare closures meant that many parents lost access to institutional and informal childcare support which significantly impacted the paid and unpaid labour of parents, particularly of course, mothers (Yavorsky et al., 2021). Since the start of the pandemic, many women curtailed their research activities, begun fewer new projects, and acquired less research funding (Cardel et al., 2020; Gao et al., 2021, cited in Caldarulo et al., 2022). Ucar et al. (2022) estimated that the gender gap in academia suffered an approximately 12-month setback during the lockdown months of 2020, while COVID-related research areas suffered an additional 18-month setback.

When gender intersects with social class research suggests that it can have a negative influence on academic careers. For instance, Ostrove’s (2003) research on American female students found that working-class women were more likely to experience imposter syndrome, although this study only compared them to females from other social classes. Alongside this, a study conducted by the British Federation of Women Graduates (2023) revealed that female academics frequently faced pressure to assume time-consuming responsibilities that their male counterparts tend to decline. Unfortunately, these tasks typically do little to enhance female academic prospects for career advancement. For instance, a PhD study by Rachael Goodwin (2022) included a classed and gendered analysis of academic housekeeping. She found that this work was often exacerbated by ‘working class traditional feminine caring roles within the home, on top of the emotional labour conducted in HE’ (p. 135), These additional tasks left one respondent revealing that she felt like she was a ‘dogsbody’ (Goodwin, 2022, p. 136). WCA women are still encouraged to take on nurturing and service roles within the profession due to their working-class values and upbringing.

Despite Walkerdine et al. (2001) aptly asserting ‘that social class is an overwhelmingly masculine category’, it is interesting that research on the gendered impact on WCA experiences, typically focuses on female WCAs. This may stem from the assumption that male WCAs can leverage their gender to gain academic authority. However, Pease (2015) argues that WCA men can also feel like outsiders, and any masculine privileges are offset by disadvantages stemming from their working-class heritage. In Pease’s case, he argues that any advantages stemming from his masculine identity were counterbalanced by his working-class background. Hadley (2022), a ‘late onset entrant into academia’ (p. 154), adds further complexity in his poignant illustration of the emotional toll that his PhD journey took. He referred to being ‘very aware of [his] accent, not…terribly confident and although accepted, not quite fitting in’ (p. 155). These narratives are important as they provide some evidence to demonstrate that WCA men may not be entirely confident in academia, despite the perception that their masculinity eased their passage through academia. Hadley’s autoethnography contributes to the growing understanding of the nuanced ways in which WCA men navigate the academic terrain, revealing that their journeys involve a constant negotiation of identity within the academic realm. Incidentally, it is interesting that in the chapter abstract,¹ Hadley (2022) refers to himself as being a ‘bateleur’ (i.e. a tightrope walker, an acrobat, a buffoon) (p. 418), as the latter word is often associated with the working classes. Johnston and Bradford (2022) research on working-class male students undertaking care-based degrees demonstrates the impact of class and gender from a masculine perspective. The WCA men they interviewed felt that they were somehow trespassing in the care field. Whereas Watts (2015) noted in his autobiographical chapter that ‘being a reader with a good memory and some facility at writing made me a bit odd’ (p. 21). This illustrates the unique challenges faced by WCA men as working-class masculinities may clash with academic pursuits such as reading (Wilhelm & Smith, 2014).

The following section, including Table 2, outlines details of the respondents who took part in this research according to their gender.

In Phases One and Three of the research, there were a significantly greater number of female respondents compared to males. Phase two had a more even gender division although female respondents still formed the majority.

Within the academic context, intersectionality recognises that individuals may encounter distinct challenges and advantages arising from the intersection of their various identities. The narratives illuminated the intersectionality of class and gender within the academic landscape. For instance, Harriet, a Senior Lecturer in Criminology, spoke of accent bias, referring to the mockery she had faced for her accent and the gendered expectations in academic roles. Orla, a Tutor of Economic and Social History at a Russell Group institution, also reported instances of mockery related to her (Scottish) accent. Orla referred to examples of gender bias being evident as she talked of being treated differently from her male colleagues, with students using titles like ‘Miss’ or ‘Ms’ instead of ‘Dr’. Zara, a Research Fellow in History affiliated with a Russell Group university, encountered accent bias too: ‘I frequently feel that my accent and appearance are subjected to judgment’. She referred to challenges as she was precariously employed, which exacerbated for Zara, who, without family support, found herself unable to easily relocate, limiting her networking opportunities. Despite these challenges, Zara talked about how her experiences had equipped her with the ability to connect with non-traditional students – something that should make her an asset within the institution. These experiences are particularly challenging for WCA women as they face double bias (gender & class), leading to layered discrimination and pressure to constantly prove themselves.

Overall n. 12 respondents (n. 9 females) acknowledged their experience with bullying by checking the corresponding checkbox in the survey. This matched research by Simpson and Cohen (2004) who found there was a significantly higher proportion of women who experienced bullying. Few respondents (n2) provided written accounts of bullying in their surveys, with both examples coming from men. The Anti Bullying Alliance defines bullying as ‘the repetitive, intentional hurting of one person or group by another person or group, where the relationship involves an imbalance of power. It can happen face to face or online’. Workplace bullying can include a wide spectrum of actions, including (1) Verbal abuse – such as demeaning personal attacks, (2) Public email, or social media shaming – can be in person in a meeting, via group, and (3) Isolation – being cut off from colleagues who can support you. Bullying within academia is a complex phenomenon and can manifest among individuals of any gender, class, or background, although targets of bullying are often the most vulnerable members of the workforce (Mahmoudi, 2020; Tight, 2023), i.e. people on casualised contracts and early career researchers (ECRs). Both narratives in my data drew attention to the issue of social class within academia. Archie, a Head of School and Professor at a Russell Group institution, disclosed ‘persistent bullying’ in academia. Archie’s experience included being ‘constantly bullied and dismissed by middle-class women, while snooty men just ignore me’. Bobby, a Lecturer and Researcher in Sociology at two institutions, talked of having had an awful time in academia, referring to a ‘weird middle class sterilised passive aggressive culture’. Archie’s narrative, particularly the use of ‘constantly’ suggests that it wasn’t an isolated incident but a recurring pattern. Bobby’s narrative implies a sense of difference or a cultural clash from the restrained atmosphere in academia. As academia involves hierarchical power structures, if middle-class academic women (as referred to by Archie), hold positions of power or perceive themselves as having more status, they might misuse this power dynamic. The competition for resources, recognition, and opportunities in academia may also lead to bullying behaviours as individuals vie for limited positions or resources. Stereotypes about WCA men as either being more privileged due to their gender or being perceived as having less prestigious educational backgrounds, thus, being less competent or capable, appeared to contribute to these discriminatory actions.

One respondent, Riley, a Lecturer in Education at a traditional institution, who did not give details of their gender identity faced classism, accent bias, and a lack of opportunities within their department. Riley expressed scepticism about the potential for change in academia they believed that research like ‘this’ provides a platform for WCAs to speak openly about their experiences. Riley’s narrative highlights the multifaceted challenges faced by WCAs in academia, extending beyond gender identity to encompass issues of class, social background, and personal expression. Their experiences of feeling excluded and undervalued highlight the pervasive nature of classism and accent bias within academic settings. The experiences of Riley and other WCAs underscore the need for continued efforts to promote equity and inclusion in academia.

There was one key theme found in the data in relation to the intersection of class and gender in academia.

Ethnicity

Statistical data from HESA in 2021/2022 revealed that of academic staff with declared ethnicity, 72% were White, 3% Black, 11% Asian, 3% Mixed, 3% ‘Others’, and 9% ‘Unknown’ (HESA, 2023).² Academics defined as ethnic minorities remain underrepresented at senior levels. Of 21,760 professors with known ethnicity, only 12% were ethnic minorities – 65% who identify as an ethnic minority were Asian (HESA, 2023). There has been a historical failure to recognise Black scholars, something that persists today, as there is both an invisibility and hypervisibility that many WCA academics of colour face, i.e. they are both invisible in terms of recognised competence yet are scrutinised and expected to be tokens of diversity (Lander & Santoro, 2017). Despite the posters of contented-looking people of colour adorning these institutions, the stark reality persists: universities often articulate their ‘commitment to diversity’ through speech acts rather than substantive and meaningful practices (Ahmed, 2007). Research finds that academics of colour experience isolation, lack of support, and devaluation of their work (Turner et al., 2008 cited in Bhopal, 2022). Alongside this, a report by Karran and Mallinson (2017) revealed that when compared to White staff, ethnic minorities reported significantly higher rates of disciplinary threats, were denied promotions, and faced infringements on academic freedom due to their gender or race. Joseph Salisbury’s research (2021) illuminates that ethnic minorities frequently face scepticism regarding their qualifications and/or intellectual capabilities. On the flip side, they are sometimes praised in a patronising manner for their articulateness.

Class and ethnicity intersect in complex ways, not as isolated categories (Ferree, 1990). For instance, Mahony and Zmroczek (1997) talked of how some of the black female academics of African and African Caribbean origin she spoke to mentioned that despite their middle-class accents, it was frequently presumed that they were working class (p. 21). Working class women of colour, who typically experienced classed, gendered, and racialised biases (Hills Collins, 2019), faced stigma as intellectually deficient and tended to be subjected to harmful stereotypes as lazy and undeserving (Gorski, 2012). The effects of these intersections are still evident within UK academia. For instance, Bhopal’s 2014 report on Black British academics outlines how they face triple glass ceilings due to intersecting gender, ethnicity, and class barriers, evidenced by severe underrepresentation at senior levels. In a report for a University and College Union by Nicola Rollock (2019), interviews with 20 black female professors in the UK revealed that these scholars faced a culture of passive bullying and racial microaggressions that narrowed their chances of promotion. Alongside this, Akbar (2022) talked of his journey into academia from an intersectional perspective of being British-born, of Pakistani heritage and a Muslim male, noting that intersections of classist and racist discourses operated to alienate and exclude him in academia.

Table 3 shows that in Phase One of the research, the majority of respondents were White, with 77 individuals falling into this category. Owing to the structure of how the data in this phase was recorded, 22 respondents were classified as being ‘BME’. In Phase Two, White respondents formed the majority (n.68) of interviewees, there was an increase in respondents from diverse ethnic backgrounds – notably, there are 6 respondents from the Asian or Asian British category, n. 3 from Black or Black British (Caribbean or African), n. 2 from Mixed or multiple ethnic groups, and n.6 did not give details of their ethnicity. In Phase Three, the distribution of respondents across ethnic groups was similar to Phase Two, with slight fluctuations in the number of White respondents (n. 68), and those who did not give their ethnicity (n. 6).³

Respondents revealed that they faced a myriad of challenges within academic spaces. For instance, Ari, a male of Asian British ethnicity, aged 36–45, shared a compelling narrative focusing on the intricate layers of his identity. Teaching Arabic Middle Eastern and Islamic Studies at a prestigious Russell Group institution, Ari highlighted challenges encompassing classism, accent bias, and microaggressions. His experiences, rooted in racism and Islamophobia due to his Muslim Indian heritage and working-class background, exposed pervasive biases within the academic environment, emanating from both colleagues and students. Alongside this, Sabin, a Lecturer in Education Studies, talked of enduring racism and classism in his professional life. Similarly, Ari, specialising in Islamic Studies at a Russell Group institution, emphasised the intersectionality of discrimination due to his Muslim Indian heritage and working-class background. Their accounts also highlight the complexity of challenges faced by male WCA. The status of being male and an academic often entails patriarchal privileges within elite structures designed to subordinate and exclude women. However, Black WCA men encounter a dual disadvantage due to the convergence of their ethnicity (being black) and their socioeconomic status (working class). Alongside this, Black academics (male and female) are often subjected to excessive scrutiny, potentially leading to them being overlooked for promotions (Bhopal & Jackson, 2013). Both these factors can independently contribute to social inequalities, and their intersection compounds the challenges faced by these individuals, such as discrimination.

Isla,⁴ a female working in Education, at a traditional university had an academic journey marked by financial constraints and isolation. Facing challenges on short-term contracts in her early career, she encountered a lack of understanding from colleagues about the financial struggles associated with academia. Alfie, a Black British, Caribbean, or African male, pursuing a PhD in Sports Science at a post-1992 institution, referred to ‘the daunting reality of academic precarity and insecure contracts’, highlighting his lack of economic capital. Despite these hurdles, Alfie observed that his institution was welcoming to people from diverse backgrounds, which signals a potential positive shift in inclusivity. Amelia, a female in the 46–55 age group pursuing a PhD in Global Health at a Russell Group institution, also shared a narrative that revealed struggles with academic precarity, alongside many other issues, i.e. isolation, difficulties fitting in, and confrontations with classism, microaggressions, and discrimination. Research tells us that ethnic minorities continue to be both underrepresented in universities, and more likely to be on precarious contracts (Baltaru, 2023). While my early research revealed a disproportionate likelihood for WCAs with a disability to encounter casualisation, I observed a similar trend among WCAs of colour, although to a lesser extent. While my data didn’t reveal specific reasons, existing research on ethnic minority academics (Bhopal, various; Joseph-Salisbury, 2021; Rollock, 2019), this could be influenced by various inter- connected factors such as structural inequities, implicit bias and discrimination may be factors.

There were two key themes found in the data in terms of the intersection of class and ethnicity in academia.

Disability

The number of staff known to have a disability increased by 2,645 compared to 2020/2021⁷ (HESA, 2023). In all, 4% of academics with a disability were professors; 5% of ‘other senior academics’ had a disability, as did 6% of academics defined as ‘other contract level’. This is likely to have been underreported as 14.6 million people in the UK had a disability in the 2020/2021 financial year, representing 22% of the total population (UK Parliament, 2023). Universities, historically structured for able-bodied academic staff (Stone et al., 2013), have witnessed the emergence of a performance-driven working culture due to heightened globalisation, marketisation, and bureaucratisation in higher education (Brown & Leigh, 2018). Consequently, individuals with disabilities may opt not to disclose their disability status, potentially influenced by the prevailing working environment. This decision may also be because an academic’s worth is often categorised by whether their institution views them as ‘earners’ or ‘costers’ (Brown & Leigh, 2018, p. 265). Academics who secure research grants, attract students, or engage in activities that contribute to the institution’s financial success are regarded as ‘earners’. These academics are valuable assets that bring prestige. This emphasis on revenue generation can incentivise types of research, teaching or activities that attract more funding or students. Academics who are not great income generators or whose work is not financially lucrative may be categorised as ‘costers’. In this context, the value of their contributions may influence their job security and professional recognition. Brown and Leigh (2018) felt academics with disabilities have two choices regarding disclosure: one entails revealing the disability, allowing for access to specific forms of support and identification as someone with a disability, while the other option involves refraining from disclosing the disability and then avoid potential discrimination and stigma (p. 987).

A report by Sang (2017) found that academics with disabilities experience a number of barriers to full participation in academic life, ranging from a lack of access to reasonable adjustments (RAs) to fatigue and inaccessibility of buildings (for teaching, meetings, informal social interactions, etc.). When the intersection of social class is considered, academics encounter barriers rooted in both classism and ableism. For example, classist assumptions of intellectual inferiority become compounded with assumptions of physical or mental deficiency (Dolmage, 2017). An elite/middle-class academic with a disability may have more resources, so differences in social class may counteract the effects of disability. Class privilege, for example, might afford better medical treatment, a resource potentially unavailable to a WCA with a disability who does not have comparable economic resources. Waterfield et al. (2018) drew on Garland Thomson (2011) concepts of ‘fit’ and ‘misfit’ to exemplify how university environments can significantly contribute to the experience of disability. This concept of ‘fit’ and ‘misfit’ revolves around the notion that the physical and social environments of universities can either accommodate or hinder the well-being and success of people with disabilities. In an inclusive and accommodating setting, they may experience a better ‘fit’, where they can effectively navigate and thrive within their academic roles. Adding the intersection of class to this emphasises further ways that they may or may not ‘fit in the academic environment’. Overall, these studies demonstrate that socioeconomic status can either compound or help overcome some aspects of disability marginalisation. However, there was a lack of research on the intersections of class and disability in terms of academics. As Maamri and Dipper (2021) noted that having low socioeconomic status and a disability can lead to a double disadvantage when it comes to social mobility, further research on WCAs with disabilities is increasingly important.

Table 4 outlines the details of the respondents who took part in this research according to their disability.

Across the three phases, there was a noticeable shift in the composition of participants with a disability. Phase One predominantly comprised respondents without disabilities, while Phase Three exhibited a significant increase in the number of participants with disabilities. This transition towards a more inclusive representation of participants with disabilities in Phase Three can be attributed to a deliberate change in the research study’s recruitment approach. From Phase Two, there was an explicit emphasis on recruiting respondents based on multiple intersecting factors, including ethnicity and disability. This expanded outreach likely played a pivotal role in diversifying the respondent ‘pool’, leading to a more representative and inclusive sample in later phases.

The narratives of WCAs with disabilities highlight the complexities they face in HE. For instance, Demi, an Associate PVC Education and Deputy Dean, Business and Law at a post-1992 institution, narrated a disheartening incident during a staff seminar where she shared her PhD thesis. Instead of receiving support and acknowledgement of her disability (ADHD), she faced the adverse reaction of several academic colleagues walking out. This incident emphasised there can be a lack of understanding and empathy within the academic community towards individuals with invisible disabilities. Nicola, an academic in History at a post-1992 institution, emphasised the discrimination she had experienced:

I think I am discriminated against most for being disabled. It’s small microaggressions and because of all the equality and diversity groups, the least understood in higher education.

While I did not uncover existing research to directly support Nicole’s claim that disability is the ‘least’ understood within equality and diversity frameworks, subsequent sections clearly demonstrate the significant challenges faced by WCAs with disabilities.

Sienna, a Professor of Engineering Education at a small specialist university, talked about the difficulties of being neurodiverse and not having an instinctive understanding of unwritten rules, particularly when coming from a background with limited exposure to certain norms.

I was an engineering professional before I became an academic and would ever have been able to go directly into academia – nobody in my family even had GCSEs/O levels. Being neurodiverse means unwritten and hidden rules are particularly confusing and opaque – this is compounded when you don’t come from a background where you instinctively know what to wear, how to address people, how to pronounce certain words and so on.

The statement supports existing research that has found that the ‘hidden curriculum’, in universities can marginalise minoritised groups such as neurodivergent students, hindering their ability to fully realise their potential (Sulaimani & Gut, 2019). Sienna observed that Engineering, her field of study, is especially conducive to WCAs, particularly those who are neurodiverse. She justified this perspective by highlighting the explicit rules, relative meritocracy, and greater tolerance for straightforward communication within the discipline compared to others. The assessment of the ‘rules’ in Engineering and the ease of having blunt conversations is challenging to comment on without further evidence. Also, embracing the notion of engineering as a meritocracy implies that the observed under representation of women (as well as ethnic minorities, people with disabilities, and those from lower socio-economic backgrounds) are underrepresented in the engineering profession (EngineeringUK, 2022), must result from fair and meritocratic processes. Luna, a respondent with multiple intersections – a Lecturer in Creative Writing at an institution established in 1963, a WCA, and a single parent with ADHD – shared a narrative similar to Sienna, as she too emphasised the difficulties of navigating the unspoken rules of academia. The experiences of these respondents highlight the need for greater awareness and accommodation for individuals with invisible disabilities within academic institutions.

There were three key themes found in the data in terms of the intersection of class and disability in academia.