Deploying the perspective of ‘relational work’, this article investigates the mechanisms behind the gender-unequal distribution of academic service. The concept of relational work is used to analyse how men and women in academia balance collective against individual interests when agreeing or disagreeing on service tasks. Four types of relational work are identified: compliance, evasiveness, barter and investment, with compliance being more common among women, evasiveness and barter being more common among men and investment being tied to temporality in a gendered pattern. The article shows that men are more successful in pursuing individual interests against service demands and how this depends on their relational work as well as organisational role expectations, reducing women’s prospects of ‘saying no’. The study is based on qualitative interviews with 163 associate and full professors in the social sciences and CV data on their service contributions.
AckerJ (1990) Hierarchies, jobs, bodies: A theory of gendered organizations. Gender & Society4(2): 139–158.
2.
AckerJ (2009) From glass ceiling to inequality regimes. Sociologie du travail51(2): 199–217.
3.
BabcockJPeyserBVesterlundL, et al. (2022) The No Club: Putting a Stop to Women’s Dead-End Work. New York: Simon & Schuster.
4.
BandeljN (2012) Relational work and economic sociology. Politics & Society40(2): 175–201.
5.
BandeljN (2020) Relational work in the economy. Annual Review of Sociology46(1): 251–272.
6.
BatesT (2021) Rethinking how we work with Acker’s theory on gendered organizations. An abductive approach for feminist empirical research. Gender, Work and Organization29(4): 1041–1064.
7.
BeatsonNJTharaposMO’ConnellBT, et al. (2022) The gradual retreat from academic citizenship. Higher Education Quarterly76: 715–725.
8.
BirdSLittJWangY (2004) Creating status of women reports: Institutional housekeeping as ‘women’s work’. NWSA Journal16(1): 194–206.
9.
BrittonDM (2000) The epistemology of the gendered organization. Gender & Society14(3): 418–434.
10.
Cruz-CastroLSanz-MenendezL (2021) What should be rewarded? Gender and evaluation criteria for tenure and promotion. Journal of Informetrics15(3): 101196.
11.
FletcherJ (1999) Disappearing Acts: Gender, Power, and Relational Practice at Work. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
12.
GarciaA (2014) Relational work in economic sociology: A review and extension. Sociology Compass8(6): 639–647.
13.
GuarinoCMBordenVMH (2017) Faculty service loads and gender: Are women taking care of the academic family?Research in Higher Education58(6): 672–694.
14.
HanasonoLKBroidoEMYacobucciMM, et al. (2019) Secret service: Revealing gender biases in the visibility and value of faculty service. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education12(1): 85–98.
15.
HeijstraTMEinarsdóttirÞSteinþórsdóttirFS (2017a) Testing the concept of academic housework in a European setting: Part of academic career-making or gendered barrier to the top?European Educational Research Journal 16(2–3): 200–214.
16.
HeijstraTMSteinthorsdottirFSEinarsdottirT (2017b) Academic career making and the double-edged role of academic housework. Gender and Education29(6): 764–780.
17.
LawrenceJOttMBellA (2012) Faculty organizational commitment and citizenship. Research in Higher Education53(3): 325–352.
18.
MacfarlaneB (2005) The disengaged academic: The retreat from citizenship. Higher Education Quarterly59(4): 296–312.
19.
MacfarlaneB (2007) Defining and rewarding academic citizenship: The implications for university promotions policy. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management29(3): 261–273.
20.
MacfarlaneB (2011) The morphing of academic practice: Unbundling and the rise of the Para-academic. Higher Education Quarterly65(1): 59–73.
21.
Ministry of Higher Education and Science (2021) Danish Code of Conduct for Research Integrity. Copenhagen: Ministry of Higher Education and Science.
22.
MisraJLundquistJHHolmesE, et al. (2011) The ivory ceiling of service work. Academe97(1): 22–26.
23.
NeumannATeroskyAL (2007) To give and to receive: Recently tenured professors’ experiences of service in major research universities. The Journal of Higher Education78(3): 282–310.
24.
O’ConnorPO’HaganCBrennenJ (2015) Exploration of masculinities in academic organisations: A tentative typology using career and relationship commitment. Current Sociology63(4): 528–546.
25.
O’MearaKAKuvaevaANyuntG, et al. (2017) Asked more often: Gender differences in faculty workload in research universities and the work interactions that shape them. American Educational Research Journal54(6): 1154–1186.
26.
ParkSM (1996) Research, teaching and service: Why shouldn’t women’s work count?The Journal of Higher Education67(1): 46–84.
27.
RismanBJDavisG (2013) From sex roles to gender structure. Current Sociology 61(5–6): 733–755.
28.
RossmanG (2014) Obfuscatory relational work and disreputable exchange. Sociological Theory32(1): 43–63.
29.
SchilkeORossmanG (2018) It’s only wrong if it’s transactional: Moral perceptions of obfuscated exchange. American Sociological Review83(6): 1079–1107.
30.
ThompsonPBergeronDMBloniMC (2020) No obligation? How gender influences the relationship between perceived organizational support and organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology105(11): 1338–1350.
31.
WestobyCDysonJCowdellF, et al. (2021) What are the barriers and facilitators to success for female academics in UK HEIs? A narrative review. Gender and Education33(8): 1033–1056.
32.
ZelizerVA (2005) The Purchase of Intimacy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
33.
ZelizerVA (2012) How I became a relational sociologist and what does that mean?Politics & Society40(2): 145–174.
