Implementing gender-based violence policies in the neoliberal university: challenges and contradictions

Purpose Undertaking feminist inquiry calls for scholars to challenge the powerful hegemonic, masculinist, taken for granted values and gender injustices that continue to underpin institutional life (Wickstrom et al. , 2021). A root cause of gender injustice is misogynistic and neoliberal institutional practices. Gender injustices range from micro-aggressions to workplace bullying (Mavin and Yusupova, 2021), as well as the perpetuation of sexualized and gender-based violence (GBV). The purpose of this paper is to consider the challenges with policy implementation of GBV policies. Specifically, the authors discuss the barriers three senior women leaders at one Canadian university face in their efforts to change institutional culture, with the intention of minimizing GBV on campus. By attending to the lived experiences of women leaders involved in trying to effect institutional change, the authors learn that GBV is not an unusual event. Rather, it is an everyday occurrence perpetuated by hierarchical cultures that resist those women leaders who think and act differently. Put simply, trying to lead differently is not without risk, especially for those women courageous enough to speak out against gender injustices in the workplace. The risks associated with speaking out are at the individual level (personal identity) and interactional level (social ties) (Khan et al. , 2018). Furthermore, these findings suggest women leaders willing to speak out may experience isolation. Over time, this isolation can lead to a lack of support and burnout (Zumaeta, 2018). Design/methodology/approach Building upon the work of Ahmed (2014; 2015; 2017; 2019; 2021), this paper seeks to explicate the interconnections between gender and structural inequities in the neoliberal academy. The authors use a theoretical and methodological approach that draws upon Ahmed’s (2014) notion of “practical phenomenology.” This approach can highlight valuable insights from the experiences of those involved in the act of “doing,” which, in this case, refers to three women leaders engaged in the implementation of a GBV policy. Using this approach helps to weave theory and praxis together to comprehend the difficulties women leaders experience in putting policy into practice to enact institutional change to eradicate gender inequities. Findings The findings of this paper indicate the challenges women leaders in academia have in putting policy into practice. Four interconnected themes emerge: the insidious institutional roots of GBV; naming or lack thereof; pockets of resistance; and balancing contradictions. These findings also indicate that leading this type of institutional policy change requires determination and courageous action to combat organizational sexism (Ahmed, 2021). This action is not without challenges to the careers of those willing to speak out against gender injustice in the workplace. Research limitations/implications Research limitations are that this is a small study undertaken at one university in Canada. As such, these findings cannot be generalized. That said, learning from women leaders' practical experiences can help feminist scholars understand the difficulties in effecting institutional change, especially in regards to turning GBV policy into practice. In turn, this learning adds value to the gender and management literature. Originality/value This paper’s originality is twofold. First, this paper lies in the practical phenomenological approach the authors engage in to consider gender inequities relating to the difficulties of effecting institutional change in higher education institutions. Engaging in this critical approach helps to learn from the experiences of “expert knowers,” which, in this case, refers to those senior women leaders at the forefront of trying to effect institutional change by putting GBV policies into practice. Second, this paper adds to the literature critiquing how masculinist structures in higher education operate to shore up institutional sexism.