The Gender Accountability Gap: How Neoliberal Universities Perpetuate Inequality
"Unmasking the hidden biases in academia and exploring the possibilities for true relational ethics."
For decades, gender inequality in academia has been a persistent issue, often linked to the rise of neoliberal management practices. New Public Management (NPM) has inadvertently created environments where traditional biases are amplified, hindering the progress of women in higher education. This system, driven by market logic, individualism, and competition, often favors masculine norms, making it difficult for women to thrive.
Existing research highlights women's struggle to align with hegemonic academic norms. The pressure to embody masculine traits like individualism and competitiveness places immense strain on female academics. This not only undermines values such as collegiality and collaboration but also demands an 'elastic self'—a chameleon-like adaptability to balance work and life, often at a personal cost.
However, this perspective often overlooks the relational aspect of gendered subjectivities. Drawing on the work of Judith Butler, this article delves into how gendered moral subjects are produced through accountability in neoliberal universities. It examines how these relations, often structured along heterosexual norms, create distinct challenges and possibilities for consent and resistance. By understanding these dynamics, we can begin to address the systemic inequalities that persist in academia.
Defining Neoliberalism
Neoliberalism is best understood as an ideology and policy model that emphasizes the value of free market competition britannica.com plato.stanford.edu. While there is considerable debate over the defining features of neoliberal thought and practice, it is most commonly associated with laissez-faire economics britannica.com. It can also be understood as a doctrine about how politics and the economy should be organized .
Approaches to Studying Neoliberalism
Scholars typically examine neoliberalism by identifying its real-world examples and weighing its advantages and drawbacks across economic policy and society. This approach involves tracing how free-market assumptions shape institutional behavior and public outcomes. A central limitation is that because the ideology is contested and loosely defined, its effects are difficult to isolate from other social and political forces, making analysis inherently interpretive rather than strictly measurable.
Origins and Evolution
Neoliberalism is generally understood to have emerged in the mid-twentieth century and risen to prominence in the late twentieth century, though scholars disagree on a precise starting point and set of milestones. Its intellectual roots are typically traced to thinkers who argued for a reduced role of central economic governance. Claims about specific turning points and their exact dating remain matters of ongoing scholarly interpretation rather than settled fact.
The Double-Edged Sword of Neoliberal Governance
Neoliberal governance functions as a double-edged sword, simultaneously creating an increasingly accountable academic subjectivity while also restricting the ability to form a genuinely responsive female subjectivity. The emphasis on institutional accountability requires academics to prioritize institutional demands, often at the expense of relational ethics and personal well-being.
- Individualism and Competition: The promotion of individual achievement over collaboration undermines collegiality and support networks.
- Market Logic: The pressure to generate revenue and attract funding can distort research priorities and create a competitive environment.
- Elastic Selves: The demand to balance multiple responsibilities leads to constant pressure and a struggle to meet conflicting expectations.
Evolving Scholarship
Current research continues to refine how neoliberalism is defined and measured, though the field remains largely theoretical and interpretive in nature. Recent reviews emphasize that no single definition commands consensus among scholars, and that applications of the concept vary widely by discipline. As a result, findings in this area should be treated as provisional and subject to ongoing debate.
Critiques and Untested Claims
Because the evidence base is limited and contested, strong claims about neoliberalism's outcomes are frequently challenged. Critics note that grouping such diverse policies under a single label can obscure important differences, and that many asserted effects lack direct measurement. Such arguments should therefore be understood as interpretations open to revision rather than established conclusions.
Comparisons Across Contexts
Meaningful comparison across national and institutional contexts is difficult because definitions and applications of neoliberalism vary so widely. Differences in how markets, state intervention, and group interests are treated make direct comparisons inherently imperfect. Any comparative conclusions should be offered cautiously, as they depend heavily on the particular definition chosen.
Toward a Relational Ethics in Academia
The findings underscore the need to move beyond individualistic understandings of agency and resistance, recognizing that true change requires a fundamental shift in the ethical framework of academia. By embracing relational ethics, universities can create spaces where generosity, openness, and vulnerability are valued, fostering a more equitable and supportive environment for all academics. Only through such transformation can we hope to dismantle the gender accountability gap and build a truly inclusive academic community.
Bringing the Evidence Together
When synthesized, the available material supports only modest and qualified conclusions about how neoliberal governance relates to social inequality in higher education. The strongest common thread among sources is the emphasis on free market competition and a skepticism of group- and state-based protections. Broader causal claims, however, currently rest on limited evidence and remain open to debate.
Open Questions
Future work will likely focus on arriving at a more standardized definition so that effects on institutions and inequality can be measured with greater precision. Researchers may also explore how the ideology's defining principles translate into specific practices within universities. These directions remain speculative, as current evidence does not yet support firm predictions.
Systemic Conditions
Neoliberalism's underlying assumptions about economics and politics function as systemic conditions that shape how institutions allocate resources and treat different groups. Because the ideology emphasizes individual rather than group interests, its structural effects on inequality are plausible yet difficult to document directly. This highlights the challenge of attributing specific institutional outcomes to any single cause.
Everyday Consequences
At the level of everyday life, shifts toward market-driven governance are believed to affect who bears risk and who benefits from institutional practices, though direct evidence is partial. Observers report that such shifts can reinforce existing inequalities, but these accounts are largely anecdotal rather than systematically verified. Real-world impacts should therefore be described as reported effects rather than conclusively demonstrated ones.