Today, colleges and universities are tasked with understanding complex and sometimes conflicting data on female students. Until 2018 and the #METOO movement, media narratives proclaimed that Western women lived in a postfeminist world where “sexism no longer exists” (Pomerantz & Raby, 2017, p. 11). Meanwhile, researchers have demonstrated in multiple studies that the experiences of undergraduate women differ from those of their male peers (Kim & Sax, 2009; Wharton, 2012).
Looking at committees on the status of college women is a way to understand how the institutions preparing young people for the world metabolize conflicting data on female students and approach equity issues. The purpose of this study was to examine how three universities—Duke University, Princeton University, and Massachusetts Institute of Technology—researched and wrote about the status of female undergraduates and to assess the impact of each university’s work.
Through analyses of reports and interviews with campus leaders and current students, I concluded that the work of the committees at Duke and Princeton was framed as “women’s work” for administrators, faculty, staff, and students. This framing is consistent with neoliberal ideology: The committees saw the impact of cultural and institutional gender inequity but described it in a way that made it only the work of some—it was “women’s work,” and female students should adapt, cope, or change.
At MIT, the report was “women’s work” because two female students spearheaded and led it. Their approach to data collection could serve as a model for other campuses that want to understand the extent to which the undergraduate experience is gendered.
|Advisor:||Eynon, Diane E.|
|Commitee:||Armacost, Mary-Linda, Mahoney, Maureen A.|
|School:||University of Pennsylvania|
|Department:||Higher Education Management|
|School Location:||United States -- Pennsylvania|
|Source:||DAI-A 80/01(E), Dissertation Abstracts International|
|Subjects:||Womens studies, Education Policy, Gender studies|
|Keywords:||Administration, Education, Evaluation, Female students, Higher education, Leadership|
Copyright in each Dissertation and Thesis is retained by the author. All Rights Reserved
The supplemental file or files you are about to download were provided to ProQuest by the author as part of a
dissertation or thesis. The supplemental files are provided "AS IS" without warranty. ProQuest is not responsible for the
content, format or impact on the supplemental file(s) on our system. in some cases, the file type may be unknown or
may be a .exe file. We recommend caution as you open such files.
Copyright of the original materials contained in the supplemental file is retained by the author and your access to the
supplemental files is subject to the ProQuest Terms and Conditions of use.
Depending on the size of the file(s) you are downloading, the system may take some time to download them. Please be