Qualitative analysis reveals gender dynamics and barriers affecting women pilots, suggesting improved support strategies.
Purpose This article explores the enabling and constraining factors affecting women pilots and cadets in Australian commercial aviation. Despite women’s long involvement in aviation, gendered stereotypes persist in a traditionally male-dominated career setting, thereby impacting and impeding women’s entry to and retention in commercial pilot roles. Design/methodology/approach This study adopts a qualitative, social constructivist approach that draws on Acker’s (1990) feminist theory of gendered organisations to help make sense of these pilots’ experiences. Purposive sampling was utilised to identify 15 Australian women pilots at various stages of their careers. In-depth, semi-structured interviews were conducted with a priority on voicing women’s voices and perspectives and thematic coding was undertaken to elicit core themes. Findings Qualitative analysis identified two theme clusters: the gendered barriers in aviation that constrained the pilots in their careers and the enabling negotiation strategies used to navigate those careers. Our analysis demonstrates the effects of gender dynamics in male-dominated organisational settings. The findings demonstrate that the organisational structures and practices in commercial aviation still inherently favour masculine norms. Originality/value “Airline pilot” has been described as one of the most strongly gender-stereotyped jobs (Miller and Budd, 1999; Gorlin and Bridges, 2021), yet there have been few qualitative studies exploring the lived experiences of women in these roles. The findings highlight the need for greater career guidance and tailored initiatives to cater for women’s specific workplace and career needs and support the call for more visible role models. This study sheds further light on the impacts of such gendered stereotypes and barriers, together with enabling influences that assist with recruiting and retaining.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Mosolena et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: