Ruveyde AYDİN, Ayse DELIKTAS, Oznur KORUKCU, Kamile KABUKCUOGLU

Gender Perception of Academicians Using Social Media and the Influencing Factors

Objective: In this study; the gender perception of academicians and the influencing variables related to the individuals and their families are examined.Methods: The study was conducted online on the Facebook groups, which academicians from various universities in Turkey are members of. The questionnaire prepared by the researcher and the “Perception of Gender Scale” were used. Percentages and frequencies were used for the evaluation of the data related to individuals and their families; multi-linear regression analysis was performed for the evaluation of the variables influencing the perception. A total of 589 academicians were contacted for the study.Results: It has been determined that academics using social media had high gender perception scores. It has been determined that being female, specializing in educational sciences and social sciences, and having working mother increased the gender perception; having a mother with secondary school education or less decreased the gender perception.Conclusion: In conclusion, while being an academic positively affects the perception of gender, patriarchal social structure still has an effect on the difference between men and women. That only woman and variables related to woman have an effect on the perception of gender shows the importance of woman in the formation of the gender perception.

Keywords:

Higher education Gender, Academician, Social media, Gender equality,

PDF

___

1. Connell R, Soydemir C. Toplumsal Cinsiyet ve Iktidar: Toplum, Kişi ve Cinsel Politika. İstanbul: Ayrıntı; 1998
2. Özkanlı Ö, White K. Leadership and strategic choices: Female professors in Australia and Turkey. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 2008; 30(1): 53-63.
3. Parashar S, Dhar S, Dhar U. Perception of values: a study of future professionals. Journal of Human Values, 2004; 10(2): 143-152.
4. Althusser L. İdeoloji ve Devletin İdeolojik Aygıtları. Ankara: İthaki yayınları; 1994.
5. Emirosmanoğlu Z. Bourdieu in Turkey: Translation space in revival Bourdieu en Turquie: L’espace des traductions en pleine émergence. Journal of Human Sciences, 2016; 13(2): 2710-2734.
6. Connell RW, Messerschmidt JW. Hegemonic Masculinity: Rethinking the Concept. Gender & Society, 2005; 19(6): 829-859.
7. Chronaki A. Disrupting ‘Development’as the Quality/Equity Discourse: Cyborgs and Subalterns in School Technoscience. In Mapping equity and quality in mathematics education. New Jersey: Springer; 2010.
8. White MJ, White GB. Implicit and explicit occupational gender stereotypes. Sex Roles, 2006; 55(3-4): 259-266.
9. Clearfield MW, Nelson NM. Sex differences in mothers' speech and play behavior with 6-, 9-, and 14-month-old infants. Sex Roles, 2006; 54(1-2): 127-137.
10. Rust J, Golombok S, Hines M, Johnston K, Golding J, Team AS. The role of brothers and sisters in the gender development of preschool children. J Exp Child Psychol, 2000; 77(4): 292-303.
11. Gönenç İ, Akgün Ş, Özvarış Ş, Bahar T, Emin T. An analysis of the relationship between academic career and sex at Hacettepe University. Egitim ve Bilim, 2013; 38(170): 166-178.
12. Sağlamer G, Tan M, Çağlayan H. Türk Yükseköğretiminde Kadın Katılımı Üzerine Bir Araştırma. İstanbul: Cenkler Matbaacılık; 2013.
13. Kahraman L. Nevşehir Hacı Bektaş Veli Üniversitesi toplumsal cinsiyet algısı araştırması. International Periodical For The Languages, Literature and History of Turkish or Turkic, 2014; 9(2): 811-902.
14. Dikmen N, Maden D. Kadın akademisyenlerin görünmeyen emeği üzerine bir araştırma: Ordu Üniversitesi örneği. Sosyal ve Beşeri Bilimler Dergisi, 2012; 4(2): 235:250.
15. Akar C. Investigating the students’ perceptions of the democratic values of academicians. Journal of Social Studies Education Research, 2016; 7(1): 96-139.
16. Altınova H, Duyan V. Toplumsal cinsiyet algısı ölçeğinin geçerlik güvenirlik çalışması. Toplum ve Sosyal Hizmet, 2013; 24(2): 9-22.
17. Badinter E, Ekmekci A. Kadınlık mı? Annelik mi? İstanbul: İletişim yayınları; 2011.
18. Sancar S. Türk Modernleşmesinin Cinsiyeti–Erkekler Devlet, Kadınlar Aile Kurar. İstanbul: İletişim Yayınları; 2012.
19. Gündüz DU. The role of gender factor in career advancement of academics. International Journal of Social Science and Humanity; 2016; 6(11): 830.
20. Van Anders SM. Why the academic pipeline leaks: Fewer men than women perceive barriers to becoming professors. Sex Roles, 2004; 51(9-10): 511-521.
21. Chowdhury P. Gender bias in education: Perceptions of masculinity and femininity. International Education and Research Journal, 2017; 3(5): 253-255.
22. Connell R. Gender, health and theory: conceptualizing the issue, in local and world perspective. Social Science & Medicine, 2012; 74(11): 1675-1683.
23. Skarpenes O, Nilsen, ACE. Regional gender inequality in the Norwegian culture of equality. Gender Issues, 2015; 32(1): 39-56.
24. Khalid R. Changes in perception of gender roles: Returned migrants. Pakistan Journal of Social & Clinical Psychology, 2011; 9(1): 16-20.
25. LaFont S. Beliefs and attitudes toward gender, sexuality, and traditions amongst namibian youth: Gender Research & Advocacy Project. Namibia: Legal Assistance Centre; 2010.
26. Endendijk JJ, Groeneveld MG, van Berkel SR, Hallers-Haalboom ET, Mesman J, & Bakermans-Kranenburg MJ. Gender stereotypes in the family context: Mothers, fathers, and siblings. Sex Roles, 2013; 68(9-10): 577-590.
27. Wirth L. Breaking through the Glass Ceiling: Women in Management. Geneva: International Labour Organization; 2001.
28. Connell R, Pearse R. Gender: In World Perspective (Polity Short Introductions). Cambridge: Routledge; 2009.