Constructing women's status: Policy discourses of university women's commission reports

Harvard Educational Review

Volumn 73, Issue 1, 2003, Pages 44-72

  Allan, Elizabeth J ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MAINE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0037362344     PISSN: 00178055     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.17763/haer.73.1.f61t41j83025vwh7     Document Type: Article

References (91)

1. Apthorpe, R. (1997). Writing development policy and policy analysis plain or clear: On language, genre and power. In C. Shore & S. Wright (Eds.), Anthropology of policy (pp. 43-58). London: Routledge.
2. Association of American Colleges and Universities. (2001). On campus with women. Copy Editor, 30(2), 1-6.
3. Bacchi, C. L. (1999). Women, policy and politics: The construction of policy problems. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
4. Ball, S. J. (1994). Education reform: A critical and post-structural approach. Buckingham, Eng.: Open University Press.
5. Bensimon, E. M. (1995). Total quality management in the academy: A rebellious reading. Harvard Educational Review, 65, 593-611.
6. Blackmore, J. (1995). Policy as dialogue: Feminist administrators working for educational change. Gender and Education, 7, 293-313.
7. Blum, D. E. (1991, October 9). Environment still hostile to women in academe, new evidence indicates. Chronicle of Higher Education, p. 1.
8. Bok, D. (1990). Universities and the future of America. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
9. Brown, W. (1995). States of injury: Power and freedom in late modernity. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
10. Cibulka J. G. (1994). Policy analysis and the study of politics in education. In J. Scribner & D. Layton (Eds.), Politics of education association yearbook (pp. 105-125). Bristol, PA: Falmer Press.
11. Coates, J. (1996). Women talk. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.
12. Coffey, A., & Atkinson, P. (1996). Making sense of qualitative data. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
13. Conway, M. M., Ahern, D. W., & Steuernagel, G. A. (1995). Women and public policy: A revolution in progress. Washington, DC: CQ Press.
14. Crosson, P. (1991). State postsecondary education policy systems. In J. L. Bess (Ed.), Foundations of American higher education: An ASHE reader (pp. 608-619). Needham Heights, MA: Ginn Press.
15. deCastell, S., & Bryson, M. (1997). En/gendering equity: Paradoxical consequences of institutionalized equity policies. In S. deCastell & M. Bryson (Eds.), Radical in〈ter〉ventions: Identity politics, and difference/s in educational praxis (pp. 85-103). Albany: State University of New York Press.
16. Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). Introduction: Entering the field of qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 1-17). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
17. Fairclough, N. (1995). Critical discourse analysis: The critical study of language. New York: Longman.
18. Ferree, M., & Martin, P. Y. (Eds.). (1995). Feminist organizations: Harvest of the new women's movement. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
19. Fine, M. (1988). Sexuality, schooling and adolescent females: The missing discourse of desire. Harvard Educational Review, 58, 29-53.
20. Foucault, M. (1978). The history of sexuality: Volume I. An introduction (R. Hurley, Trans.). New York: Vintage Books.
21. Foucault, M. (1979). Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison. New York: Vintage Books.
22. Glazer-Raymo, J. (1999). Shattering the myths: Women in academe. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
23. Greenfeld, L. A. (1997). Sex offenses and offenders: An analysis of data on rape and sexual assault (NCJ-163392). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics.
24. Griffith, A. I. (1992). Educational policy as text and action. Educational Policy, 6, 415-428.
25. Gumport, P. J. (1993). The contested terrain of academic program reduction. Journal of Higher Education, 64, 283-311.
26. Heyning, K. E. (1997, March). Professionalism and reform in teaching curriculum: An archaeology of postsecondary education. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 407 110)
27. Hicks, D. (1995). Discourse, learning and teaching. Review of Research in Education, 21, 49-95.
28. Hodder, I. (1994). The interpretation of documents and material culture. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 393-402). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
29. Huberman, A. M., & Miles, M. B. (1994). Data management and analysis methods. In N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 428-444). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
30. Iannello, K. (1992). Decisions without hierarchy: Feminist interventions in organization theory and practice. New York: Routledge.
31. Kitzinger, C., & Thomas, A. (1995). Sexual harassment: A discursive approach. In S. Wilkinson & C. Kitzinger (Eds.), Feminism and discourse: Psychological perspectives (pp. 32-48). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
32. Labaree, D. (1992). Power, knowledge and the rationalization of teaching: A genealogy of the movement to professionalize teaching. Harvard Educational Review, 62, 123-154.
33. Larson, M. S. (1990). In the matter of experts and professionals, or how impossible is it to leave nothing unsaid. In R. Torstendahl & M. Burrage (Eds.), The formation of professions: Knowledge, state and strategy (pp. 24-50). London: Sage.
34. Lather, P. (1991). Getting smart: Feminist research and pedagogy with/in the postmodern. New York: Routledge.
35. Lim, S. G., & Herrera-Sobek, M. (Eds.). (2000). Power, race and gender in academe. New York: Modern Language Association.
36. Lincoln, Y., & Guba, E. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
37. Marshall, C. (Ed.). (1997a). Feminist critical policy analysis I: A perspective from primary and secondary schooling. Washington, DC: Falmer Press.
38. Marshall, C. (Ed.). (1997b). Feminist critical policy analysis II: A perspective from postsecondary education. Washington, DC: Falmer Press.
39. Marshall, C. (1999). Researching the margins: Feminist critical policy analysis. Educational Policy, 13, 59-76.
40. Massachusetts Institute of Technology. (1999). A study on the status of women faculty in science at MIT. Retrieved January 6, 2003, from http://web.mit.edu/fnl/women/women.html
41. McNay, L. (1992). Foucault and feminism: Power, gender and the self. Cambridge, Eng.: Polity Press.
42. Miles, M. G., & Huberman, A. M. (1984). Qualitative data analysis: A sourcebook of new methods. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
43. Miller, D. W., & Wilson, R. (1999, April, 2). MIT acknowledges bias against female faculty members. Chronicle of Higher Education, p. A18.
44. Mills, S. (1992). Negotiating discourses of femininity. Journal of Gender Studies, 1, 271-285.
45. Mills, S. (1997). Discourse. London: Routledge.
46. Moore, K., & Sagaria, M. (1993, February). Women, a strategy framework and empowerment in U.S. universities. Paper presented at V Congreso Internacional E. Interdiciplinario de la Mujer, San Jose, Costa Rica.
47. National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges. (1995, March). The land-grant tradition. Washington, DC: NASULGC. Retrieved January 6, 2003, from http://www.nasulgc.org/publications/Land_Grant/Land_Grant_Main.htm
48. Ohio State University. (1971). Status of women report. Columbus: Ohio State University, Advisory Committee on Women.
49. Ohio State University. (1977). Commission on women and minorities, vol. I, summary and recommendations. Columbus: Ohio State University, Commission on Women and Minorities.
50. Ohio State University. (1992, July). The report of the President's Commission on Women. Columbus: Ohio State University, President's Commission on Women.
51. Pennsylvania State University. (1982). A summary report of the Pennsylvania State University Commission for Women. University Park: Pennsylvania State University, Commission for Women.
52. Pennsylvania State University. (1985). A proposal for a study of the status of women at the Pennsylvania State University. University Park: Pennsylvania State University, Task Force on the Status of Women.
53. Pennsylvania State University. (1988). The Strategic Study Group on the Status of Women: Report to the President and the Commission for Women. Final Report. University Park: Pennsylvania State University, Strategic Study Group on the Status of Women.
54. Pennsylvania State University. (1992a). Annual report of the Commission for Women and annual report on the status of women at Penn State, 1991-1992. University Park: Pennsylvania State University, Commission for Women.
55. Pennsylvania State University. (1992b). Report of the Penn State Commission for Women to the Penn State Board of Trustees Affirmative Action Committee, May 14, 1992. University Park: Pennsylvania State University, Commission for Women.
56. Pennsylvania State University. (1993). Penn State Commission for Women annual report 1992-93. University Park: Pennsylvania State University, Commission for Women.
57. Pennsylvania State University. (1994). A vision for an equitable university. University Park: Pennsylvania State University, Commission for Women.
58. Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
59. Readings, B. (1996). The university in ruins. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
60. Riggins, S. H. (1997). The rhetoric of othering. In S. H. Riggins (Ed.), The language and politics of exclusion: Others in discourse (pp. 1-30). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
61. Rossi A. S., & Calderwood, A. (1973). Academic women on the move. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
62. Sawicki, J. (1986). Foucault and feminism: Toward a politics of difference. Hypatia, 1, 23-36.
63. Sawicki, J. (1994). Foucault, feminism, and questions of identity. In G. Gutting (Ed.), The Cambridge companion to Foucault (pp. 286-313). Cambridge, Eng.: Cambridge University Press.
64. Scheurich, J. J. (1994). Policy archaeology: A new policy studies methodology. Journal of Education Policy, 9, 297-316.
65. Seddon, T. (1997). Education: Deprofessionalised? Or reregulated, reorganised and reauthorised? Australian Journal of Education, 41, 228-246.
66. Shore, C., & Wright, S. (1997). Policy: A new field of anthropology. In C. Shore & S. Wright (Eds.), Anthropology of policy (pp. 3-42). New York: Routledge.
67. Smith, D. E. (1990a). Texts, facts, and femininity: Exploring the relations of ruling. London: Routledge.
68. Smith, D. E. (1990b). The conceptual practices of power: A feminist sociology of knowledge. Boston: Northeastern University Press.
69. Stone, D. (1988). Political paradox and political reason. Boston: Scott, Foresman.
70. TenElshof, A. (1973). Purpose and focus of a campus commission on the status of women. Journal of NAWDC, 36(2), 84-89.
71. Tierney, W. G. (Ed.). (1990). Assessing academic climates and cultures. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
72. Tierney, W. G. (Ed.). (1991). Culture and ideology in higher education: Advancing a critical agenda. New York: Praeger.
73. Tierney, W. G. (1993). Building communities of difference: Higher education in the twenty-first century. Westport, CT: Bergin & Garvey.
74. University of Maryland. (1974). Status of women report. College Park: University of Maryland, Chancellor's Commission on Women's Affairs Committee on Classified Employees.
75. University of Maryland. (1978). Summary of activities 1977-78 academic year. College Park: University of Maryland, Chancellor's Commission on Women's Affairs, Committee on Classified Employees.
76. University of Maryland. (1990a). Annual report 1989-1990. College Park: University of Maryland, President's Commission on Women's Affairs.
77. University of Maryland. (1990b). Women on campus: A status report. College Park: University of Maryland, President's Commission on Women's Affairs.
78. University of Maryland. (1993). Women on campus: A status report. College Park: University of Maryland, President's Commission on Women's Affairs.
79. University of Maryland. (1994). President's Commission on Women's Affairs: Summary of issues 1974-1994. College Park: University of Maryland, President's Commission on Women's Affairs.
80. University of Michigan. (1972). Commission for Women annual report. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan.
81. University of Michigan. (1978). Commission for Women report. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan.
82. University of Michigan. (1992). Women at the University of Michigan: A statistical report on the status of women students, faculty and staff on the Ann Arbor campus. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, Office of the President.
83. University of Michigan. (1993). Women at the University of Michigan: Vol. II. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, Office of the President.
84. University of Michigan. (1994). Michigan agenda for women: Leadership for a new century. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, Office of the President.
85. University of Michigan. (1996). Women at the University of Michigan: Vol. III. A statistical report on the status of women students, faculty and staff on the Ann Arbor campus. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, Office of the President.
86. Valian, V. (1998). Why so slow? The advancement of women. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
87. van Dijk, T. (Ed.). (1997). Discourse as structure and process. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
88. Walker, M. (1997). Simply not good chaps: Unravelling gender equity in a South African University. In C. Marshall (Ed.), Feminist critical policy analysis: A perspective from postsecondary education (pp. 41-59). Washington, DC: Falmer Press.
89. Warshaw, R. (1994). I never called it rape: The Ms. report on recognizing, fighting and surviving date and acquaintance rape. New York: Harper & Row.
90. Weedon, C. (1997). Feminist practice and poststructuralist theory (3rd ed.). Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.
91. Weedon, C. (1999). Feminism, theory and the politics of difference. Malden, MA: Blackwell.