IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/jomorg/v32y2026i1p76-95_5.html

Who gets to progress? Multistakeholder negotiations and identity evaluation in academic careers

Author

Listed:
  • Donmanige, Iresha
  • Almeida, Shamika
  • Frino, Betty
  • Middleton, Rebekkah

Abstract

Career progression in academia is negotiated across multiple stages, yet the relational and institutional dynamics shaping these negotiations remain underexamined. This article examines how career progression negotiations unfold between STEM women academics and decision-makers, including faculty Deans, within Australian universities. Drawing on constructivist grounded theory, the study analyses 50 interviews across 14 STEM faculties. The study finds that career progression negotiations are identity-evaluative encounters that determine whether women academics are recognised as legitimate and promotion-ready. Women academics are required to render their identities visible, coherent, and credible, while decision-makers selectively interpret these claims through institutional expectations of readiness, risk, and merit. These evaluative negotiations accumulate across formal and informal interactions, shaping career trajectories before promotion decisions are made. By theorising intersectional identity negotiation as a relational and co-constructed process, the study recasts career progression as an institutional site of negotiated power, highlighting how practices reproduce or contest inequities in academia.

Suggested Citation

  • Donmanige, Iresha & Almeida, Shamika & Frino, Betty & Middleton, Rebekkah, 2026. "Who gets to progress? Multistakeholder negotiations and identity evaluation in academic careers," Journal of Management & Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 32(1), pages 76-95, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:cup:jomorg:v:32:y:2026:i:1:p:76-95_5
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S1833367225100783/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cup:jomorg:v:32:y:2026:i:1:p:76-95_5. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/jmo .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.