Gender Discrimination and Glass Ceiling in the International University in UAE
Vidhyalakshmi Ramesh
Research Scholar, Banasthali Vidyapith
Email: vidhyasneha@gmail.com
Dr. Richa Chauhan
Assistant Professor, Banasthali Vidyapith
Email: richachauhan1986@gmail.com
Abstract:
The aim of this research article is to find the challenges faced by women in climbing their organizational ladder through the epistemic concept of glass ceiling phenomenon. The general objective of this paper is to determine the impact created by glass ceiling effect upon women’s failure in representing high-ranking executive positions alike their male counterparts.
At present, women form approximately half of the workforce across the nation though their representation in senior and executive level positions are relatively minuscule to be considered. In this research, the authors identified the challenges that a woman employee undergo in her journey to executive level positions.
The present study is concerned with critical evaluation of gender discrimination and glass ceiling in the International University in UAE. The purpose of the present study is to identify the variables which play a vital role in glass ceiling effect based on gender. The study primarily focuses on gender difference / glass ceiling effect in case of University with special reference to International University in Dubai.
Key Words: gender discrimination; glass ceiling; gender discrimination in education; gender gap in University; glass ceiling effect; women in education
Introduction
“Glass ceiling” (Frenkiel, 1984; Hymowitz &Schellhardt, 1986; Mann, 1987), is simply defined as a barrier that exists without its actual presence and prevents a person from moving ahead in their career, thanks to one or more prejudices. Glass ceiling effect mainly affects the women employees in higher education institutions, especially due to the conventional gender perceptions about leading the organization.
Social psychologists have been interested in discrimination since the field’s early years (e.g., Allport, 1954; LaPiere, 1934). Traditionally ethnic rather than gender discrimination has received the most attention. Interest in gender discrimination began rising in the 1970’s, perhaps as an outgrowth of the women’s movement.
The societal changes that impact both men and women are critical in empowering the women reposition themselves both in institutions as well as in the society. The 21st century exerted a high pressure on the culture followed in different countries through its concepts such as globalization and ever-increasing importance for knowledge-based economy. Globally, the digital communication fastened the way how news is communicated in lightning speed.
According to Kiaye and Singh (2013), the participation of women in the workforce has increased tremendously across the globe in the past few years. There are lot of evidences available which infer that it is women who are lagging behind their male counterparts in reaching top leadership positions in organizations. Further, the studies also prove that the growth of women in moving ahead in their career hierarchy is also generally slow (Catalyst, 2014; Ding and Chareonwong, 2013).
Though various factors attributed to the underrepresentation of women in top leadership positions, it is gender discrimination which remains the primary factor that prevents women to climb up the organizational ladder (Acker, 2009; Kiaye and Singh, 2013).
Literature Review
The glass ceiling is defined by Morrison and Van Glinow (1990: 200) as “barrier so subtle that it is transparent, yet so strong that it prevents women and minorities from moving up in the management hierarchy.” The researchers who worked on glass ceiling effect mostly focused on the top levels in the organization and tried to find out the presence of such glass ceiling effect through the determination of actual promotion decisions to top management (Powell & Butterfield, 1994: Powell & Butterfield, 1997), contribution of women in leading management positions in terms of percentage (Blum, Fields & Goodman, 1994), remuneration earned by men and women managers (Blum et al.. 1994: Stroh, Brett & Reilly, 1992) followed by ratings achieved by potential candidates who were aiming for promotion to top management (Powell &Butterfield, 1994: Powell & Butterfield, 1997).There are no such investigations conducted to prove the existence of perceived glass ceiling effect and to deduce its impact on critical work-related perceptions and attitudes. This research paper determines both actual as well as perceived glass ceiling to understand how well each one predicts specific outcome variables.
‘Glass ceiling’ (Frenkiel, 1984; Hymowitz &Schellhardt, 1986; Mann, 1987) is simply defined as a barrier that exists without its actual presence and prevents a person from moving ahead in their career, thanks to one or more prejudices. Glass ceiling effect mainly affects the women employees in higher education institutions, especially due to the conventional gender perceptions about leading the organization.
Though women forms approximately half of the workforce across the nation, their representation in senior and executive level positions are relatively minuscule to be considered. Further, when it comes to college campuses and other educational institutions, the representation of women in senior level administration positions is very low (Jawahar &Hemmasi, 2006). In spite of the advancements in mentoring programs, professional development and leadership training, the rate at which the women reach higher positions in higher education is greatly lagging behind men (Ehrich, 1994, 1995; Quinlan, 1999; Stanford-Blair &Dickmann, 2005).
According to the report published by American Council on Education [ACE] (2012), though the women are engaged in management roles in higher education institutions, the top leadership positions in this setup too have a glass ceiling effect in place.
There are various reasons exist in gender discrimination when it comes to leadership roles, according to researchers, such as glass ceiling (Johns, 2013; Sanchez-Hucles& Davis, 2010), sexual harassment (McLaughlin, Uggen, & Blackstone 2012), mentoring and work relationships (Wallace 2014) and managing work and family (Cha 2013). Further, Jimenez (2012) mentioned that women undergo a lot of discrimination, harassment and intimidation when compared to their male colleagues.
In higher education institutions, the glass ceiling effect is one among the prominent obstacles faced by women in moving ahead to reach top positions. Compared to women, men learn the tactics of moving ahead in corporate roadmap easily which becomes an added advantage in building relationships with influential mentors who support their appraisal (Lepkowski, 2009).
Gender role perceptions hindered women’s advancement in higher education leadership (Eagly& Carli, 2007). Women face a number of gender role perceptions they must overcome to attain upper-level leadership positions. In their study of gender role congruity, Eagly and Karau (2002) defined these perceptions in terms of prejudice and maintained that this prejudice was asserted because of a general bias in favor of men as leaders and that when women did become leaders, they were judged more harshly than men and were, therefore, seen as less effective. Sczesny (2003) agreed by asserting that, in general, people envision males as leaders.
Methodology
The aim of this research study is to answer the research questions leveraging the scientific procedures. The prominent objective of conducting research is to uncover the hidden facts in glass ceiling effect.
Research methodology is a systematic procedure to handle a research problem so that the solution is found. Being a stream of science that deals with the process of conducting research, there are various steps involved in research methodology that needs to be adopted by a researcher when exploring the research problem and the logic in it. In addition to the research methods and techniques, the researcher must be aware of the entire methodology itself using which the research is conducted. The researchers must equip themselves in the development of certain indices, conducting tests, executing statistical tests such as mean, mode, median, standard deviation or chi-square and application of suitable research techniques for the considered research question. The researcher must also interrogate themselves on what these techniques are, why and how these must be utilized. The researchers should grasp the assumptions of different techniques and should be able to decode the type of techniques and procedures to be applied when trying to find the best solution to a problem.
Research Methodology
The research methods are huge in number thanks to custom-made requirements that seek information, availability of time and need patterns. These various research methods are only a result of different modifications and improvements that evolved in the due course of time.
All the research methods irrespective of their uniqueness, the main purpose is to collect information. The primary reason behind using different research methods is to justify the yield of optimum results.
There are two broad methods of reasoning present in research such as deductive and inductive approaches.
Research Design
Research design is nothing but a systematic approach followed by a researcher to conduct a scientific study. The research design set of synchronizes all the identified components and the data in order to achieve a plausible outcome. The research design should have a strategic methodology that aligns with the chosen research in order to conclude the study with authentic and accurate results. The research paper starts with the identification of various research types in order to provide a bird’s eye view understanding.
Here is the list of four research designs
Sampling Design
Sampling denotes the act of choosing a specific group of sample so that it can represent the entire population. The sampling methods are predominantly classified as two groups such as probability sampling and non-probability sampling, while in the former, every member has a fixed known opportunity to belong to the sample. There is no specific probability for an individual to be a part of the sample in latter case.
Statistically, probability sampling denotes the sampling method in which the entire population is given a pre-specified and equal chance to be a part of the sample. Having randomization principle as the base, this procedure is developed in such a way that it assures all the individuals in a population are given equal selection opportunities. This way of approaching the research reduces the possibilities of bias.
Data Collection
There are numerous ways available to fetch data for the questions prepared. The data collection technique may produce quantitative data i.e., numerical information, or illustrative information such as qualitative data, while it may also be a combination of both data types i.e., mixed methods. It remains critical to find out the type of data to be collected for answering the chosen research question.
Qualitative research is basically exploratory research which is utilized to understand the motivations, opinions and reasons that underlie the research. Qualitative research provides insights about the problem under study and it helps in the development of ideas or hypotheses for potential quantitative research.
In quantitative research, the problem is quantified through the collection of numerical data and processed statistically to gain knowledgeable insights. This type of research is utilized to quantify the opinions, attitudes, behaviors and other such defined set of variables. The results achieved from the larger sample population can be generalized.
Data Analysis and Findings
The task of data analysts is to ‘try’ to give meaning to the facts. ‘Try’ to give meaning because if the data are bad, then they will yield no interpretation. On an assumption that the data is good, the analysis can infer valuable description or otherwise explanation about the social phenomenon currently under investigation. Higher the quality of execution of the analysis, stronger the conclusion will be! (Michael, 2002, pvii)
Hypotheses Test
Z= -0.856
At 95% confidence level
The Z calculated value (-0.856) is less than the critical value (1.96) which indicates that the sample values do not support the alternate hypothesis and thus it is rejected. The null hypothesis H (µ 3) is thus supported.
P Value
The P value for the Z score -0.856 is 0.19 and this is greater than 0.05 due to which it cannot be inferred as significant value. So the null hypothesis H (µ 3) is accepted.
Further detailed analysis of the hypothesis was made based on the age group, experience and gender. All the analysis supported the null hypothesis. The Z score and the p value for the detailed analysis are provided in the below table.
|
S. No. |
Hypotheses |
Z score |
P value |
Accepted |
|
1 |
Experience |
|
|
|
|
|
2 or less |
-0.66 |
0.25 |
Null Hypotheses |
|
|
3 to 6 |
0.08 |
0.46 |
Null Hypotheses |
|
|
7 to 10 |
-1.21 |
0.11 |
Null Hypotheses |
|
|
Over 10 |
-0.52 |
0.30 |
Null Hypotheses |
|
2 |
Age |
|
|
|
|
|
18 to 29 |
-0.32 |
0.37 |
Null Hypotheses |
|
|
30 to 50 |
-0.93 |
0.17 |
Null Hypotheses |
|
|
50 or older |
-0.76 |
0.22 |
Null Hypotheses |
|
3 |
Gender |
|
|
|
|
|
Female |
-0.78 |
0.21 |
Null Hypotheses |
|
|
Male |
-0.70 |
0.24 |
Null Hypotheses |
Z =-2.44
At 95% confidence level
The Z calculated value (-2.44) is less than the critical value (1.96) which indicates that the sample values do not support the alternate hypothesis and thus it is rejected. The null hypothesis H (µ 3) is thus supported.
P Value
The P value for the Z score -2.44 is 0.007 and it is clear that it is less than 0.05 so it is significant. Thus, the null hypothesis H (µ 3) is rejected.
Further detailed analysis of the hypothesis was made based on the age group, experience and gender. Most of the analysis supported the null hypothesis except for employees with 7 to 10 years’ experience, in the age group 30-50 and male employees who claims that GD / GCE affects the promotion opportunities for women working in Universities in UAE. The Z score and the p value for the detailed analysis are provided in the below table.
|
S. No. |
Hypotheses |
Z score |
P value |
Accepted |
|
1 |
Experience |
|
|
|
|
|
2 or less |
-0.95 |
0.17 |
Null Hypotheses |
|
|
3 to 6 |
-1.04 |
0.14 |
Null Hypotheses |
|
|
7 to 10 |
-1.93 |
0.02 |
Alternate Hypotheses |
|
|
Over 10 |
-1.08 |
0.14 |
Null Hypotheses |
|
2 |
Age |
|
|
|
|
|
18 to 29 |
-1.34 |
0.09 |
Null Hypotheses |
|
|
30 to 50 |
-1.96 |
0.02 |
Alternate Hypotheses |
|
|
50 or older |
-0.87 |
0.19 |
Null Hypotheses |
|
3 |
Gender |
|
|
|
|
|
Female |
-1.27 |
0.10 |
Null Hypotheses |
|
|
Male |
-2.20 |
0.01 |
Alternate Hypotheses |
Z =-0.856
At 95% confidence level
The Z calculated value (-0.856) is less than the critical value (1.96) which indicates that the sample values do not support the alternate hypothesis and thus it is rejected. The null hypothesis H (µ 3) is thus supported.
P Value
The P value for the Z score -0.856 is 0.19 which is obviously greater than 0.05 denoting the value to be insignificant. Thus, the null hypothesis H (µ 3) is accepted.
Further detailed analysis of the hypothesis was made based on the age group, experience and gender. All the analysis supported the null hypothesis. The Z score and the p value for the detailed analysis are provided in the below table.
|
S. No. |
Hypotheses |
Z score |
P value |
Accepted |
|
1 |
Experience |
|
|
|
|
|
2 or less |
-0.10 |
0.46 |
Null Hypotheses |
|
|
3 to 6 |
0.40 |
0.34 |
Null Hypotheses |
|
|
7 to 10 |
-1.37 |
0.08 |
Null Hypotheses |
|
|
Over 10 |
-0.41 |
0.34 |
Null Hypotheses |
|
2 |
Age |
|
|
|
|
|
18 to 29 |
-0.32 |
0.37 |
Null Hypotheses |
|
|
30 to 50 |
0.61 |
0.27 |
Null Hypotheses |
|
|
50 or older |
-1.43 |
0.07 |
Null Hypotheses |
|
3 |
Gender |
|
|
|
|
|
Female |
-0.18 |
0.42 |
Null Hypotheses |
|
|
Male |
-0.40 |
0.34 |
Null Hypotheses |
Z = -0.734
At 95% confidence level
The Z calculated value (-0.734) is less than the critical value (1.96) which indicates that the sample values do not support the alternate hypothesis and thus it is rejected. The null hypothesis H (µ 3) is thus supported.
P Value
The P value for the Z score -0.734 is 0.23 which is eventually higher than 0.05 so, it remains insignificant. Thus, the null hypothesis H (µ 3) is accepted.
Further detailed analysis of the hypothesis was made based on the age group, experience and gender. All the analysis supported the null hypothesis except the employees who have 2 or less years of experience felt that GD / GCE affect the facilities provided for women in Universities in UAE. The Z score and the p value for the detailed analysis are provided in the below table.
|
S. No. |
Hypotheses |
Z score |
P value |
Accepted |
|
1 |
Experience |
|
|
|
|
|
2 or less |
-2.46 |
0.006 |
Alternate Hypotheses |
|
|
3 to 6 |
0.08 |
0.46 |
Null Hypotheses |
|
|
7 to 10 |
-0.24 |
0.40 |
Null Hypotheses |
|
|
Over 10 |
-0.45 |
0.32 |
Null Hypotheses |
|
2 |
Age |
|
|
|
|
|
18 to 29 |
-1.54 |
0.06 |
Null Hypotheses |
|
|
30 to 50 |
0 |
0.5 |
Null Hypotheses |
|
|
50 or older |
0.14 |
0.44 |
Null Hypotheses |
|
3 |
Gender |
|
|
|
|
|
Female |
-0.71 |
0.23 |
Null Hypotheses |
|
|
Male |
-0.40 |
0.34 |
Null Hypotheses |
Research Aims
The research study has the following aims:
Hypothesis
The hypotheses for the study were the following:
(µ≤3)
Result
The Z score and the simultaneous P value of all the 4 hypotheses tests proved the acceptance of null hypotheses which clearly indicates that the perceived gender discrimination / glass ceiling effect has only a moderate impact in the remuneration, career growth, promotion and facilities provided for women in International Universities in UAE.
At the same time, further detailed analysis of the hypotheses based on gender, age and work experience reflected some different view point.
Conclusions and future research
The Z score and the simultaneous P value of all the 4 hypotheses tests proved the acceptance of null hypotheses which clearly indicates that the perceived gender discrimination / glass ceiling effect has only a moderate impact in the remuneration, career growth, promotion and facilities provided for women in International Universities in UAE.
It has been found that the gender mix is fairly even for jobs at entry-level though there is a lack of female talent in the hierarchy of the organization. Being a long-term trend, the female talent cannot be considered as a sudden stall, neither mass exodus.
In UAE, the attitude towards the women in the workplace is changing for the past of couple of years. A big change is happening in the society and the presence of women is strong in numbers. The UAE is miles and miles ahead of other countries in terms of gender equality. The results support this strongly.
The Glass Ceiling / Gender Discrimination is there to a moderate extent but women are breaking the glass ceiling and are achieving in their careers. "As women, we need to break our own glass ceiling. We are all guilty in [limiting ourselves]. We need more role models, we need to be role models, and we need to be conscious of how we set up the glass ceiling,” said HodaAbouJamra, founding partner of TVM Capital Healthcare Partners at the Arabian Business Forum 2016. The government sector in UAE employed a total of 66 per cent women workforce while the overall women workforce of the country remains 59 per cent. It has the largest number of businesswomen in the GCC.
Women are loaded with opportunities to progress in their career and climb up the organizational ladder. Against the viewpoint considered by different studies, the current study focused on the existence of glass ceiling in various sectors.
Glass ceiling is a scenario in which the women are underrepresented at senior or leadership positions in the organizations due to numerous factors. Few reasons that lead to the under-representation of women in higher positions are unavailability of female role models in leadership positions, nurturing children or prolonged maternity leave and male dominant social networks. Much contrary to different studies and theories which inferred the presence of glass ceiling effect, the current study has a different outcome. Though the glass ceiling effect is not supported in any form, majority of the respondents cited that the main reasons for the underrepresentation of women in leadership positions is the resistance of men against women being promoted at top leadership posts and the dominance of males in social networks.
Bibliography
Anderson, N., 2017. The Glass Ceiling Controlling Promotion of Women in Academia: A Phenomenological Study (Doctoral dissertation, Northcentral University).
Cotter, D. A., Hermsen, J. M., Ovadia, S., &Vanneman, R., 2001. The glass ceiling effect. Social Forces, 80(2), 655-682.
Eggins, H. ed., 2016. The Changing Role of Women in Higher Education: Academic and Leadership Issues (Vol. 17). Springer.
Famiglietti, R.R., 2015. Discerning the Glass Ceiling: A Phenomenological Study of the Glass Ceiling, SocialRole Theory, Role Models, Mentors, Sponsors, and Champions. Drexel University.
Hamdan, L., 2016, ‘Gender inequality in workforce a major issue – Emirates NBD vice-president’, Arabian Business,https://www.arabianbusiness.com/gender-inequality-in-workforce-major-issue-emirates-nbd-vice-president--632676.html
Jarmon, L., 2014, Cracking the glass ceiling: A phenomenological study of women administrators in higher education, Iowa State University.
Key Differences between Probability and Non-Probability Sampling. Retrieved from https://keydifferences.com/difference-between-probability-and-non-probability-sampling.html
Kothari, C.R., 2004.Research Methodology Methods and Techniques. 2nd edn. Delhi: New Age International (P) Ltd. Retrieved from http://www.modares.ac.ir/uploads/Agr.Oth.Lib.17.pdf
Martin, J., 2015, ‘Forget the glass ceiling, we need to fix the broken windows first’, The Guardian, https://www.theguardian.com/women-in-leadership/2015/may/26/forget-the-glass-ceiling-we-need-to-fix-the-broken-windows-first
McLlwain, W.M., 2012. The glass ceiling: Progress and persistent challenges. University of Maryland University College.Available from PsycINFO. (1492668061; 2013-99230-007).
Michael, R., 2013. Women in leadership in higher education: Leadership styles and the" glass ceiling". Trevecca Nazarene University.
Morris, S.A., 2010. Examining gender differences in hitting the glass ceiling and riding the glass escalator (Doctoral dissertation, Ohio University).ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, 125
Palumbo, P. A. 2003, Perceptions of potential gender discrimination against women: The roles of evidence and motivation to perceive genderdiscrimination, (Order No. 3092978). Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses A&I. (305311411).
Purcell, D., MacArthur, K.R. and Samblanet, S., 2010. Gender and the glass ceiling at work. Sociology Compass, 4(9), pp.705-717.
Reeves, M.K., 2015. Glass Ceiling Effect: A Qualitative Study of Higher Education Women Administrators and Mentorship. Northcentral University.
Research Design - Types of Research Design. Retrieved from https://scholarshipfellow.com/research-design-types-research-design/
Research Methodology. Retrieved from https://www.wisdomjobs.com/e-university/research-methodology-tutorial-355/objectives-of-research-11332.html
Saleem, S., Rafiq, A. and Yusaf, S., 2017. Investigating the glass ceiling phenomenon. South Asian Journal of Business Studies, 6(3), 297-313.
Smith, P., Caputi, P., & Crittenden, N. 2012, How are women's glass ceiling beliefs related to career success? Career Development International, 17(5), 458-474.
Types of data. Retrieved fromhttps://cyfar.org/types-data
