The Silent Standpoint: How Professors Explain Gender Disparities in Academia

Margaretha Järvinen & Nanna Mik-Meyer

British Journal of Sociology2026https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-4446.70095article
AJG 3ABDC A
Weight
0.50

Abstract

Based on 77 qualitative interviews with professors in higher education, this article explores the interviewees' opinions on how gender disparities in academia should be explained. We show that male professors relate women's career barriers to family factors and women's own interests and preferences. In contrast, female professors favour explanations at the university level, for example lack of recognition of women, implicit bias in evaluations, male networks and an unwelcoming academic culture. Furthermore, we identify a 'silent standpoint' among the participating male professors: the idea that women are generally less qualified than men as candidates for full professorships. The article draws on sociological accounting theories, focussing on the 'excuses' and 'justifications' used by professors when discussing gender issues. Male professors 'excuse' gender disparities in academia by referring to women's preferences or 'justify' them by appealing to meritocratic standards. Entangled in these 'neutralising' accounts is the silent standpoint regarding women's low qualifications, a standpoint, however, that is difficult for male professors to articulate in an interview with a female colleague.

Open via your library →

Cite this paper

https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-4446.70095

Or copy a formatted citation

@article{margaretha2026,
  title        = {{The Silent Standpoint: How Professors Explain Gender Disparities in Academia}},
  author       = {Margaretha Järvinen & Nanna Mik-Meyer},
  journal      = {British Journal of Sociology},
  year         = {2026},
  doi          = {https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-4446.70095},
}

Paste directly into BibTeX, Zotero, or your reference manager.

Flag this paper

The Silent Standpoint: How Professors Explain Gender Disparities in Academia

Flags are reviewed by the Arbiter methodology team within 5 business days.


Evidence weight

0.50

Balanced mode · F 0.40 / M 0.15 / V 0.05 / R 0.40

F · citation impact0.50 × 0.4 = 0.20
M · momentum0.50 × 0.15 = 0.07
V · venue signal0.50 × 0.05 = 0.03
R · text relevance †0.50 × 0.4 = 0.20

† Text relevance is estimated at 0.50 on the detail page — for your query’s actual relevance score, open this paper from a search result.