Women's Studies Programs Still Struggle For Legitimacy On College Campuses

August 24, 2001

University Park, Pa. -- Now in their third generation, women's studies programs are struggling more than ever to achieve equal status with other university disciplines, a Penn State study says.

Many people, on and off campuses, perceive women's studies as more feminist ideology than scholarly substance, says Dr. Carol L. Colbeck, associate professor of education and senior research associate with Penn State's Center for the Study of Higher Education. This viewpoint, along with structural obstacles within academe, conspires to make women's studies a second class discipline.

Colbeck traces the malaise afflicting women's studies to an underappreciation of the relevance and rigor in feminist scholarship. While noting that feminist instruction has its ideological bent, she disputes the premise that ideology makes feminist scholarship less scholarly. She defends the essential mission of women's studies, which reinterprets the role and contributions of women in all aspects of culture -- the arts, science, politics, the family -- in an attempt to fill in gaps and broaden perspectives. Women's studies, in her view, also answers the question: In the historical canon, why weren't women's voices incorporated to begin with?

The good news, Colbeck says, is that attitudes, policies and resource allocation can all be changed to accommodate the growth of women's studies throughout higher education.

Colbeck and co-author, Dr. Deborah A. Burghardt, associate professor and director of the women's studies program at Clarion University in Clarion, Pa., surveyed 20 women's studies faculty at four state universities with well established women's studies programs. Their findings, "Women's Studies Faculty: Claiming Feminist Scholarship in a State University System," was presented at the annual American Education Research Association (AERA) conference. The paper, which did not look at private institutions, was based on Burghardt's doctoral dissertation at Penn State.

At these particular state universities, as well as institutions across the country, women's' studies had been marginalized from the beginning by being given program, rather than departmental, status say the authors. The faculty themselves had been assigned to traditional disciplines primarily in the humanities and social sciences. To teach women's studies courses, they had to secure department approval and in effect be loaned to the women's studies program, a state of affairs that further stamped women's studies at their schools with a badge of inferiority, the authors note.

The study compared two groups of faculty, the first being what Burghardt and Colbeck referred to "interdisciplinary scholars" (IDS), faculty who gave close attention to feminist principles and developed more women's studies courses strengthening the women's studies curriculum. They were also more inclined to challenge the status quo in academe. The second group, called "disciplinary scholars" (DS), felt a less intense commitment to feminism and were not as likely to be involved in a feminist network. In the interest of securing tenure, they were more willing to subordinate research on gender issues to research in a traditional discipline, according to the researchers.

"Disciplinary scholars saw limited resources as a reason to publish their findings in journals judged as more prestigious and credible by departmental heads or colleagues who recommend them for tenure and promotion. Some disciplinary scholars chose work they believed their departments valued even if that meant putting women's studies scholarship on hold," Burghardt says.

"On the other hand, interdisciplinary scholars responded to tenure and promotion pressures and resource limitations by seeking grant funds or personally financing their own attendance at feminist conferences," says Burghardt. "In some cases, they worked extra hard or became more committed activists to ensure that their feminist values and work would not be compromised by formal organizational values."

Both interdisciplinary and disciplinary scholars in the study reported that at times they received low marks from students, who expected a more top-down, hierarchical style of teaching.

"Many students are used to seeing the teacher as the full vessel of knowledge who will fill their empty vessel," says Colbeck of Penn State. "Because women's studies challenges the traditional role of students, as well as teachers, some students have trouble with that. Pedagogy as practiced in women's studies grants students more power but also more responsibility for their own learning. This in turn means more work for students."

"Women's studies is losing valuable feminist scholarship as too many faculty contort themselves to fit into or struggle against their perceptions of what institutions, departments and students value," Burghardt says. "For example, titling work in ways that do not reveal the content focus on women or the application of feminist and gender analyses may only reinforce fears of rejection by disciplinary journals and conference committees, or concerns about the perceived importance or rigor of their work among departmental colleagues. Women's studies work may then go unclaimed and uncounted."

Burghardt and Colbeck urge that women's studies faculty teaching cross-listed courses stress their association with a women's studies program at every opportunity, both in professional conferences and on their curriculum vitae.

"Women's studies faculty can acknowledge each other's contributions to the curricular stability of their women's studies program, transformation of their disciplinary department curricula and the retention of women students. They can request that departmental committees endorse this work as well," Burghardt adds.

***pab***

Contacts:

Paul Blaum (814) 865-9481 pab15@psu.edu

Vicki Fong (814) 865-9481 vfong@psu.edu

EDITORS: Dr. Colbeck is at (814) 865-9740 or at clc15@psu.edu by email; Dr. Burghardt is at (814) 393-2720 or at dburghardt@clarion.edu by email.