A typology of sexism in contemporary business schools: Belligerent, benevolent, ambivalent, and oblivious sexism

Abstract

The legitimacy of business schools is based on rankings, revenues, branding, and opportunities to support staff and students “to make a difference in the world”. Yet sexism in business schools is endemic. Drawing on Acker's inequality regimes framework and a thematic analysis of reports in <i>Poets&Quants</i>, EFMD's <i>Global Focus</i> and AACSB International's <i>BizEd/AACSB Insights</i> over a decade, this study explores how business schools are dealing (or not) with sexism. We propose a typology of four categories of sexism in business schools: belligerent, benevolent, ambivalent, and oblivious sexism. Our findings contribute to understandings of institutional theory and the institutional development of business schools as important sites of (sexist and gendered) knowledge production and dissemination and entrenched inequalities. We posit that media constructions of sexism may better inform individual decisions, organizational development, and governance about the imperative to eliminate sexist behaviors and discrimination. We argue that business schools need to gain substantive legitimacy as effective role models by reforming themselves. They must actively tackle institutional and cultural sexism from within. Implications for practice include the effective inclusion of mandatory sexism reporting in international business school accreditation standards and rankings criteria as well as requirements for research funding.