Received: 27 September 2017 Revised: 20 November 2017 Accepted: 24 November 2017

DOI: 10.1111/gwao.12233

SPECIAL ISSUE ARTICLE

Gendered images of international research

collaboration
Kathrin Zippel

Department of Sociology and Anthropology,

Northeastern University, 201 Ren Park, 360
Huntington Avenue, Boston, MA 02115, USA
Correspondence
Kathrin Zippel, Department of Sociology and
Anthropology, Northeastern University, 201
Ren Park, 360 Huntington Avenue, Boston,
MA 02115, USA.
Email: k.zippel@northeastern.edu
Joan Acker's theory on gendered organizations offers important
tools for understanding subtler forms of inequalities and gendered
practices in the workplace. According to Acker, invisible mecha-
nisms in organizations such as the symbolic and material/structural
aspects of organizations reproduce gendered inequalities. My appli-
cation of Acker's theory demonstrates how imagery itself assigns
value to collaborative practices in gender stereotypical ways. In
an institutional context that devalues international research collab-
oration among faculty, gendered images of exploiter, patronizing
helper, partner, or friend ultimately serve to construct glass fences ‐
obstacles to international collaborative engagement ‐ particularly
for women. The reflection and potential recreation of gendered
inequalities among academics simultaneously reconstructs inequal-
ities between the U.S. and abroad, as institutional reward structures
attach gendered symbolic and material values that (re)shape
(international) collaborations themselves. Together, these processes
construct the gendered organization of global science and
academia.

KEYWORDS

academia, gender, globalization, international research collaboration,

STEM fields

1 | I N T RO DU CT I O N

Joan Acker's theory of gendered organizations insists on revealing hidden dimensions of power by elucidating how
(subtle) gendered and intersectional inequalities are embedded in organizations. Through theory and example, she
leads researchers to study those subtle gender inequalities with a focus on the symbolic and material/structural
aspects of organizational structures and processes (Acker, 1990, 2006). Inspired by Acker's work, my research has
explored the gendered construction of global science (Zippel, 2017). Here, I discuss original data drawn from
interviews and focus groups with over 100 faculty and administrators from science, technology, engineering and
mathematics (STEM) fields in research‐intensive universities in the United States. I demonstrate how US faculty
discussions about international collaboration in academia construct a gendered imaginary of research engagement
abroad that creates gendering practices in the workplace (Martin, 2003; van den Brink & Benschop, 2012).

Gender Work Organ. 2018;1–12. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/gwao © 2018 John Wiley & Sons Ltd 1
2 ZIPPEL

My research reveals that US academic institutions devalue international collaboration due to the US hegemony in
science (Zippel, 2017, p. 30). When STEM faculty talk about international collaboration, they use gendered images to
make sense of those relationships with colleagues abroad. Although faculty shy away from discussing status and hierar-
chies explicitly, they use deeply gendered ideas of patronizing helper, exploitation, partnership and friendship to depict
the collaborations they are engaged in or observe. While the patronizer and exploiter reflect explicitly hegemonic mascu-
line collaborators, the helper reflects femininity and is devalued. Faculty commonly prefer purportedly gender‐neutral
images of friendships and partnerships; yet in the context of global science both of these relational forms are laden with
status and power inequalities. Thus, the gendered discourse and symbolism embedded within the US language of
international collaboration reveal multiple, intersecting inequalities rooted in the organization of global science.
These gendered images of international collaboration construct glass fences or gendered obstacles that academics
— and especially women — have to overcome to engage in international collaborations. The term glass ceiling has been
used to describe barriers women face on the path to leadership positions in business and academia. Glass fences
refers to how international academic work amplifies and intensifies gendered inequalities in academia (Uhly, Visser,
& Zippel, 2017; Zippel, 2017).
Acker argued strongly that gender has symbolic aspects that are tied to material rewards in organizations. I show how
the attachment of gendered cultural ideals to images of relationships results in differential rewards. Likewise, gendered
images align with the reward structures of academic organizations (universities, funding agencies, etc.) that consider
collaborations in hiring, tenure and promotion, or merit evaluations. While valuing masculine forms of collaboration instru-
mentally oriented toward publications and grants (even if exploitative), other forms of collaborations including those
based on solidarity and other feminine forms are devalued and/or remain invisible. In addition to the impact of differential
rewards for collaborative practices on the micro‐level, there are gendered implications involving access to international
collaborations themselves discouraging women potentially more than they do men (see Zippel, 2017, p. 51).
International collaborative relationships are constructed in the intersection of age, rank, field, gender, organiza-
tional status and academic nationality. I define academic nationality as membership in an (imagined) academic commu-
nity by either trained at or affiliated with an academic institution in that country (Zippel, 2017). US‐based academics
experience what I call a .edu bonus on their affiliation with American science. Since 2001, only US Department of
Education accredited postsecondary institutions of higher education have been allowed to have addresses ending
in .edu. While other countries might use .edu for academic institutions, their domains always end in a country code.
In contrast, US institutions do not use a country code and instead retain .edu as the primary domain. The high prestige
associated with .edu is thereby normative for the United States (Ramirez & Tiplic, 2014). By association, US‐trained or
‐based academics glean that status by default through .edu email addresses and websites, as the Internet itself has
become a space to represent social status. Thus, the stratification of global science affords US academics a .edu bonus
— like a passport to (global) academia, a stamp of approval — whereas those abroad experience a .edu penalty.
Acker's work has been critical in helping me to make the case that gender is not only in individuals’ heads and
measurable by individual behaviour. Rather, gender is inherent in academic institutions, visible through the values
and material rewards they offer, as well as the practices of collaboration that have subtle mechanisms, images and
expectations that are likely to exclude women and others who do not fit into the typical mould of an academic (Currie,
Thiele, & Harris, 2002; Nielsen, 2015).

2 | A C K E R'S G E N D E R I N G O R G A N I Z A T I O N S TH E O R Y A N D T H E
GENDERING OF GLOBAL SCIENCE

According to Acker (1990):

[t]o say that an organization, or any other analytic unit, is gendered means that advantage and
disadvantage, exploitation and control, action and emotion, meaning and identity, are patterned through
and in terms of distinction between male and female, masculine and feminine. (p. 146)
ZIPPEL 3

Acker (1990) describes five processes that create and reproduce gendered organizations: (i) the production of gender
divisions; (ii) the creation of symbols that explicate, justify or oppose gender divisions; (iii) gendered, everyday inter-
actional patterns; (iv) internal gendered constructions, in which people construct gender‐appropriate behaviours
within organizations; and (v) the creation of organizational logics that might appear to be gender neutral but contain
an underlying substructure that is gendered. All five gendering processes are useful in the analysis of global science as
a gendered organization, however, in my analysis of glass fences, I focus here mainly on the first three (Zippel, 2017).
All faculty face obstacles when engaging in international research collaborations: these can be institutional,
structural, cultural, symbolic or political. International collaborations require time and financial resources. Glass fences
are gendered obstacles that academics face in international collaborations and research. Invisible inequalities emerge
through the gendered practices of international collaboration that involve a gendered division of labour, gendered
images of international collaboration and the unequal distribution of material rewards.
First, Acker's emphasis on the gendered division of labour is crucial for understanding differences in the frequency of
engagement between women and men in international collaboration, how many collaborators they have and who their
collaborators are — all of which point to a possible gendered division of labour in the organization of global science. Cur-
rent research on gender gaps in collaboration is inconclusive in the United States, but women academics overall seem to
have less access to international collaboration (Bozeman, Fay, & Slade, 2013; Fox, Realff, Rueda, & Morn, 2017; Gaughan
& Bozeman, 2016; Zippel, 2017). In many countries, including in the United States, there is also a gender gap in interna-
tional collaborative publications: women co‐author less with international colleagues than men do (Elsevier, 2017). Most
strikingly, even as international co‐authorship has increased since the 1990s, a gender gap in cross‐national collaboration
persists — despite the fact that there are only small gender differences in rates of collaboration overall (Elsevier, 2017).
I argue that the gender gap also reflects the gendered organization of academia itself (Acker, 2008; Bird, 2011;
Britton, 2017; Caprile et al., 2012; Husu & Morley, 2000; Riegraf, Aulenbacher, Kirsch‐Auwärter, & Müller, 2010).
Academic women have less time, access, and resources for research. Compared to men, women professors are more
likely to work at teaching‐intensive colleges and universities, and when in the same institution, women spend more
time on teaching and service (O’Meara, Kuvaeva, Nyunt, Waugaman, & Jackson, 2017). Thus, the gender division of
labour within academia creates glass fences, providing less time and resources for women to engage in international
research collaborations (Zippel, 2017).
Second, Acker's analysis focuses on gendered images, as gendered meanings are communicated through symbols.
Certain forms of collaboration are depicted as feminine and therefore devalued while others are depicted as masculine
and thus valued more highly. These gendered meanings also reflect and shape institutional reward structures of
collaborations indicating possible glass fences. Historically, for instance, women did not receive recognition for their
scientific achievements. They were officially relegated to subordinate positions, while male professors or even their
husbands received the credit. As Acker (2008) argues:

When women entered academia as scholars and potential professors, they attempted to become part of a
world that was premised on their subordination and submissiveness … the implicit presence of people
(women) like them was essential for the existence of academia. (p. 289)

These inequalities are exacerbated for women of colour in academia.

While formal and informal rules of acknowledging contributions have changed, universities’ reward structures
continue to value individual over collective efforts (Misra, Smith‐Doerr, Dasgupta, Weaver, & Normanly, 2017).
Reflecting deeply engrained hierarchical (gendered) power relations within academia, women are concerned that their
contributions will be valued less if they work with men, fearing that men will get credit for their work (Misra et al.,
2017). Misra et al. provide a framework to study the ‘resources, recognition, and relationships [that] create conditions
under which collaboration is likely to produce more gender equitable outcomes for STEM faculty’ (2017, p. 1). As
Acker (2006) also argues, gender or racial inequalities will not vanish in teamwork, as gender inequalities are rooted
in the fundamental organization of capitalism.
4 ZIPPEL

Indeed, when institutions evaluate international collaborations, global inequalities in the structure of science and aca-
demia become apparent. Global science is deeply stratified, with varying scientific infrastructures and research capacities
but also status differences that affect opportunities for research and collaborations. Yet, the production of academic and
scientific knowledge is increasingly global. While US researchers do not collaborate internationally to the degree that
many Europeans do, one‐third of journal articles published by US STEM researchers are co‐authored with international
collaborators (National Science Board, 2016). Cutting‐edge academic knowledge is produced more and more by large
interdisciplinary, international teams in STEM fields in particular. Additionally, US faculty consider international collabora-
tions to be highlights of their careers, and internationally co‐authored articles tend to be placed in higher‐impact journals
and receive more citations (Zippel, 2017). Nevertheless, unless these collaborations result in funding and publications in
journals considered leading, they remain devalued and invisible in evaluation processes in US research universities.
International research has a complicated history of ‘scientific colonialism’ that is characterized by US (and European)
scholars gaining access to and extracting data, local knowledge, artefacts, specimens and other materials, and then using
the resultant discoveries to advance their careers without crediting locals. Resistance from local communities and scien-
tists from other countries compelled US funding agencies and (international) scientific associations to promote global
research integrity, restructure co‐authorships and establish codes for ethical behaviour. The 2010 Singapore Statement
on Research Integrity and the 2010 Nagoya Protocol on Access and Benefit Sharing, for example, promote ethical stan-
dards for international research (collaborations). Countries also have regulations to govern knowledge transfer, materials
and so on. Despite these efforts, global science continues to be characterized by unevenness in academic, social and
cultural capital that affects status hierarchy and power among academics and shapes cultural imagery about scientists’
academic nationalities. The academic worth of international collaboration is devalued further when it is depicted as
primarily a friendly, enjoyable, touristic hobby that only elite scientists can afford (Zippel, 2017).
And third, even supposedly gender‐neutral images of friendship create glass fences. As Acker (1990, 2006) points out,
everyday interactions between women and men create gendered inequalities that can impact international collaborations.
By depicting intellectually stimulating, collaborative relationships as friendships, faculty emphasize pleasure, fun, joy and
affective bonds. While these ties provide both the glue and the motivation to overcome routine obstacles and barriers of
trust, they can also (re‐)structure inequalities at work (Tomaskovic‐Devey, 2014). The expectation of friendship at work is
likely to reproduce homophily (McPherson, Smith‐Lovin, & Cook, 2001), in which people tend to socialize and form
friendships with those who are most like them. Homophily has exclusionary consequences for women and others who
do not ‘fit’ into professional networks (Brass, 1985; Ibarra, 1993). The expectation that collaborators are friends thus
creates an invisible glass fence. For women, creating friendships with men — particularly across cultures — is even more
complicated due to gendered norms and expectations around socializing, as well as the potential of sexual harassment
(van den Brink & Benschop, 2014). Since there are fewer women working in STEM fields to collaborate with, they have
fewer options than do men (Caprile et al., 2012; National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, Insti-
tute of Medicine, & Committee on Maximizing the Potential of Women in Academic Science and Engineering, 2007).
I conclude that institutional support and incentives are needed to revise the gendered practices that underlie
current systems of evaluating, rewarding and valuing international collaboration. For this to occur, it is necessary to
ask: (i) how faculty view relationships with international collaborators; and (ii) how do gender and academic nationality
intersect in an organizational context that devalues international collaboration.

3 | METHODS

This study is based on data on the international research experiences of US‐based STEM faculty that include phone
and in‐person interviews with more than 100 university STEM faculty (2007–2015); and eight focus groups with 18
STEM faculty (2009–2010). Participants represent 38 US research universities. The interviews lasted between
20 minutes and two hours and were recorded and transcribed. The sampling strategies sought faculty from a range
of disciplines, regions, ages, ranks, genders and minority statuses. The majority of faculty who participated had some
ZIPPEL 5

international research or collaboration experience. Faculty were primarily in the fields of engineering (32 per cent),
biology and other life sciences (22 per cent), and social sciences (17 per cent). Almost half held the rank of full profes-
sor. Associate professors comprised 26 per cent of the sample and 19 per cent held the rank of assistant professor.
The average age was 50.5 years old. Forty‐two per cent were women and 58 per cent were men. Faculty members
identified primarily as white (85 per cent); 15 per cent identified as racial/ethnic minorities, including Asians, Latinos,
African Americans and Native American. My research team asked faculty about their experiences with, as well as
opportunities and barriers to, international collaboration. We coded the transcribed interviews and focus groups for
reoccurring themes and variation of views based on a grounded theory approach (Bryant & Charmnaz, 2007), using
NVIVO to organize the data analysis (see for more detail Zippel, 2017).

4 | GENDERED IMAGES

The faculty narratives revealed how gender and academic nationality come into play in collaborations across national
boundaries, illuminating otherwise hidden power relations in the gendered, globally stratified organization of science
and academia. Interviewees expressed little explicit concern about how (global) inequalities shaped their relationships
with their international collaborators, independent of whether their collaborations were in economically privileged or
poor contexts in Europe, Asia, Latin America or Africa. However, Acker's attention to the work of symbols in the cre-
ation of gendered processes turned my focus to the picture of collaboration that professors would paint about rela-
tionships with collaborators abroad either their own or their colleagues. While images of friendship and partnership
were the most prevalent and cast as models of collaboration to follow, the images of patronizing help and instrumental
exploitation were depicted as those to be avoided.

4.1 | PATRONIZING HELPER

Interviewees discussed the image of a patronizing, benevolent, altruistic, missionary who intends to ‘help’ colleagues
from countries with lesser research capacities. Viewed generally as lacking in benefit for the US scientist, many faculty
urged caution. A senior faculty member told an assistant social science professor that her relationship with her
collaborators abroad was more useful to them than it was to her. She recalls: ‘When will you stop helping your
European collaborators and care about your own career?’ This male colleague considered her collaborative work to
be a type of displaced altruism that was not worthwhile. She published in European publications that are ranked lower
(and are therefore less valued) than US journals independent of whether they were in English or not. His assumption
of ‘helping others’ is a gendered discourse that reflects the notion that women always act first on behalf of others.
From his perspective, the right thing to do — meaning what men would do — is to promote one's own career first
and foremost. Underlying, of course, was the condescending attitude towards the academic value of her international
collaborators and the publication outlets themselves.
An African American full professor of physical sciences outlined the presumed pitfalls of doing collaborative
research abroad. Using a biblical metaphor, he said:

First the key is [to] identify a person to work with in the country that they would like to collaborate with.
Request a small planning grant to visit and see the feasibility of doing it. People have to be willing to go
there and learn as well. If people want to go there, like to boss around or tell people that they need to
know more, then they’ll get into trouble. That means it has to be a two‐sided process and they have to
be humble and be able to learn from the experience of the other side. Don’t plan to go like a Messiah,
just go as someone who is seeking.

This dominating style coupled with the intention of helping or liberating the outsider without being imperious
reflects US academics’ embrace of feeling of superior in science. His ethical guidance to be a seeker of the truth when
6 ZIPPEL

working abroad is steeped in religious connotations. A full professor of engineering commented on a colleague's
practice to involve scholars from non‐US and non‐European backgrounds in his lab. The image of such a patronizing
academic below also makes religious references.

[T]here is little incentive or recognition [for international collaborations in US academic institutions]. The
more instinctive drive is probably, I will call it missionary … to tap into new resources for people, to
excite them to do research, to come as students [to the United States] and then spread the knowledge
[abroad]. Which makes perfect sense and is a great thing. I had a colleague who was a master of that,
preaching to people who are not quite [there] yet in their science. He had flocks of people coming into
his lab, which was at times not overly successful, because of their lack of background, training, and
preparation. But, he liked it.

The hierarchies within this ‘missionary’ framework are illuminating in a scientific context in which the content is
‘knowledge’ not religious belief. The patronizing scientist helps other countries to make progress with their own
science by providing them with research opportunities and bestowing the prestige of an invitation to US labs.
Acker would also look for gendered, symbolic imagery to explain these scenarios, however, these (gendered)
meanings can vary depending on the particular context. Though commonly described as a neutral form of ‘capac-
ity building’, the connotation of ‘helping others’ can be deeply gendered. The ‘helping others’ image draws upon
religion as a source of (higher) intention for US‐based faculty to collaborate internationally and contrasts it
implicitly with instrumental scientific goals. But the image could also suggest that US faculty follow an ethics
of care and solidarity with their collaborators, and use their own knowledge, skills and privileges to advance their
collaborators’ situation, stereotyped as feminine. A foreign‐born full professor explained that he regularly had
visitors, including women students from a Muslim‐majority African country, come to use his equipment. He
reasoned, however, that in these situations it is ‘best not to have money involved’. Given the global inequalities
this scholar does not expect material rewards from the collaboration, but was driven by solidarity and an attitude
of sharing his equipment.
The modernization and development language, however, portrays the collaborations of US scientists (with their
.edu bonus) vis‐à‐vis their global colleagues as unbalanced and hierarchical, revealing a deeply condescending, patron-
izing relationship based on hegemonic masculinity. US scientists are cast with the masculine attributes of agent,
teacher and superior whereas the collaborations themselves are endowed with the requisite feminine attributes of
dependent, student and inferior — a glaring reflection and reproduction of status and power imbalances in the world
of science.
Just as Acker connects the symbolic and material aspects of gendered organizations, the gendering of interna-
tional collaboration occurs first through the assignment of feminine qualities of ‘helping others’ and second through
reward structures. In the eye of US academic institutions, success rests upon individual performance measured
through US lead (international) prestigious publications, grants and patents, thus devaluing ‘altruistic’ collaborative
relationships that do not result in the former.

4.2 | EXPLOITER
In the second image of international collaborations, in which global science is what Connell and Wood (2005) call the
global manager and entrepreneur of the ‘Wild West’, the US scientist is the normatively masculine ‘exploiter’ with
profit maximization as his goal. This reality is not lost on a full professor of biological science who said matter‐of‐factly
that some people ‘establish collaborations because research compensates and they can exploit other people's skills’.
While funding agency regulations hold research outsourcing at bay, there are ‘work‐arounds’. US professors can
access cheaper facilities and labour abroad, or circumvent legal regulations for some types of research. For example,
after the fall of the Soviet Union, US scientists hired Russian STEM professionals for a fraction of US costs. Another
form of taking advantage is to use local collaborators to extract data and their knowledge only. A full professor of
ZIPPEL 7

social science explained that local scholars provided access to information and materials. Yet he believed that these
scholars were not ‘good’ enough to co‐author due to lack of training and knowledge.
Acker would encourage inquiry into hierarchical power relations to explain the imagery of international collabora-
tion, which is fundamentally lopsided. To that end, I have argued that while US scientists have the .edu bonus, those with
the .edu penalty (due to country of training or current affiliation) are considered to be less worthy or competent collab-
orators (Zippel, 2017). Like the patronizing helper, the images of the exploiter reflect these unequal power relationships.
The exploiter is hegemonically masculine — as the selfish, instrumental, rational scientist. And the hierarchy of global sci-
ence constructs status in collaborative teams in terms of who is the leader, who pays for it versus who does the work. US
professors can take advantage of different pay scales based on a stratified system that is justified by the belief that US
scientists simply do the ‘best’ science. Reward structures that only measure success in terms of publications, grants or
patents do not interrogate the division of labour in the production of scientific knowledge. Thus, they reward those
who take advantage of others by rendering invisible the kinds of relationships that produce the outcomes of research.

4.3 | PARTNER
Unlike the patronizing helper and the exploiter, a third image of international collaborations is one of the ‘partner’.
While parties can have different motives, interests and resources, ‘partnering’ signifies reciprocity and solidarity. This
model avoids collaborations based on ruthless instrumentalism or forms of altruism and is closely tied to the
challenges of building trust across national borders. Professors in a focus group had the following exchange:

Woman engineering associate professor: How do you decide that the collaboration is working for you and
that you trust the other person isn’t going to cross boundaries in terms of intellectual capital, and that
you’re working towards the same goal? I have colleagues who have gone into a collaboration and then
discovered that the person was undermining some of their work. I’m wondering if it's harder to discern
that in an international collaboration as opposed to others.

Woman social scientist assistant professor: You have to sense that there's reciprocity, whether you’re
giving and they’re giving. If people are inviting you to things and you’re inviting them to things, then you
can’t help but trust that. We all have to pay attention to that issue in all relationships. Are people not
giving enough or are we taking advantage and not giving enough? If you know you’re both giving about
equally, then that's a relationship you can trust.

The perception of reciprocity gives rise to trust, but trust is challenging when negotiating different cultural values
and status differences. In the same focus group discussion, an assistant health sciences professor pointed to different
cultural understandings of trust. She said:

There are cultural values too. In many people's eyes the U.S. individualistic cultural value is perceived as
‘What do I get right now?’ People feel they need to be cautious or make a clear mutuality, [a] kind of
principled steps. Otherwise they feel, ‘What do I get?’

These faculty saw international collaborations as a two‐sided process with positive outcomes for each to achieve
mutual benefit. In this way, partnerships are constructed in opposition to the pure instrumentalism of collaboration
based on self‐interest and without the recognition of potential exploitation. Instead, collaborations viewed as partner-
ships are supposed to be win–win.
An associate engineering professor explained that he identifies collaborators based on complimentary skills: ‘All
of my collaborations are because of a need. They have been doing something for 10 years, and I need that thing.’ Thus, in
contrast to the patronizing helper or the exploiter in which one party gives and the other receives, international collaborations
as partnerships portray the relationship as a mutually beneficial research exchange. But while the partner model is not clear-
ly gendered, it is silent about the underlying global stratification and resulting inequalities in science and among scientists.
8 ZIPPEL

4.4 | FRIEND
The friend image is at the core of how international collaborations work that was overwhelmingly endorsed by the
interviewees. Supplying the ‘glue’ for international interactions, friendships help faculty to establish trust, spark the
motivation to work together and help them to overcome hurdles. An assistant engineering professor reasoned:

A really good personal friendship goes a long way. When it comes to international collaboration, there's
always going to be distance, cultural issues, sometimes the way you approach a problem, write a paper,
order authors, or how many authors are included. We do things differently here. Things happen
differently in other countries. It's good if you have a good personal friendship to collaborate with, to
keep things on the table without any party being offended.

Despite gendered notions that women seek emotional attachment and men strive for instrumental relationships,
both men and women faculty alike reported that they valued research friendships and wanted to create affective
bonds. A male full engineering professor explained: ‘You also get to know people. Scientists are people too, and
friendships are very important. The chemistry should be there.’
In fact, faculty did not just enjoy collaboration because of its friendship potential; several reasoned that friendship
was a necessary condition for effective international collaboration. A full engineering professor explained his
perspective: ‘People do business with their friends. You become friends first and then you collaborate. If you can’t
be friends with the person, you can’t collaborate with them.’ Similarly, a full professor of biology said she collaborates
with people because she ‘likes to’:

I like the interaction, and typically something comes from it. It's different every time. I don't collaborate with
people I don't like. It's not just professional for me — it's a whole package.

Both women and men find personal interactions to be a crucial part of the collaboration process.
Given the difficult nature of collaborative work, a social science associate professor explained that she believes
her collaborators chose her specifically based on their social interaction:

Funding, thinking big, making friends, it's all social. International collaborations take a lot of effort. They
have to like you because there are so many other[s] they can collaborate with. Most of my collaborators
are good friends. When you travel they like to see you, go out with you. It is mostly social connections,
being liked. It's not just high caliber scholarship. That doesn’t help alone.

US scholars commented that people in other cultural contexts expect personal involvement among collaborators,
including socializing outside of work. An assistant social science professor remarked that in France and Spain social-
izing is paramount to building relationships. She said:

Depending on the culture, involving yourself in social activities. You really can’t do anything in France or in
Spain without going to dinner. You just have to. There's this whole other component of just being friendly. I
think that's the best part of collaborations anyways. I hate to go out there and not go to dinners … Be open
to how they establish collaboration.

Personal commitment and accountability to friends might also serve as a guarantee of sorts in unknown territory
where hosts arrange various aspects of living and working abroad. Due to funding shortfalls, some faculty set up their
homes to host collaborators and their families during visits or for months at a time. Faculty also valued being able to
meet and become friends with people from other cultures as part of a cosmopolitan lifestyle.
Friendships imply a long‐term trajectory. An assistant social science professor explained that living abroad created
opportunities to build long‐lasting relationships:

My collaborations came out of a personal connection, and I think that is the best way. I made these
connections and now I can call these international collaborations. But really they are friends.
ZIPPEL 9

Another assistant social science professor said that his collaborations were based on long‐term friendships that were
more important to him than purely professional connections:

If it stays at the professional level, that can get you a certain level of connection, but it's not the same as a
kind of deeper connection. You can make friends that will be with you your entire life. Those are going to be
the deep connections that you will keep going back to.

Longer‐term relationships potentially create a foundation from which common research interests are built, building
trust and creating arrangements that are mutually beneficial.
As Acker would insist, faculty expectations of friendship in international collaboration have gendered implications
because everyday interactions at work are already gendered. The purposive crossing of personal and professional
boundaries can therefore be particularly complicated for women and people who are leading non‐heteronormative
lives. A ‘working’ lunch or dinner between women and men without a spouse or partner present may raise uneasy
questions about sexual propriety (Miller, 2017), in addition to concerns about the potential of sexual harassment.
Homophily in male‐dominated STEM networks likely enables men to find other male friends and collaborators
(McPherson et al., 2001; van den Brink & Benschop, 2014) while it presents challenges for women to find collabora-
tors and negotiate personal and professional boundaries. In addition, the personal enjoyment of cross‐cultural inter-
actions also raises questions of class in terms of who has the resources and opportunities to learn how to speak
another language, and to comfortably travel or live abroad.

5 | C O N CL U S I O N

Joan Acker argues persuasively that gender inequalities are embedded in workplace practices and the taken‐
for‐granted hierarchies, evaluations and rewards at work (Acker, 1990, 2006). Using Acker's theory of gendered
organizations, I have analysed how US STEM faculty experience and understand collaborations across national borders
in ways that reproduce gendered inequalities through symbols and practices, as well as via the stratification of global
science and academia.
In the imagery US faculty use to describe global research collaborations — the patronizing helper, the exploiter,
the partner and the friend — they explain the formation of personal relationships across borders as foundational for
collaboration itself. Reward structures of US universities tend to reproduce a masculinized vision of collaboration in
terms of the exploiter image, which symbolize selfishness, personal drive, emotion‐free objectivity and rationality.
The feminized image of the helper, in contrast, is devalued as emotional, selfless and overly concerned with caring
for others. This image of the helper, however, also reflects the underlying patronizing attitude, the US scientists as
the masculinist saviour of the world because of the US scientific superiority. At the centre of the continuum, images
of partnerships and friendships give the appearance of gender neutrality, though the reward structures and cultural
belief of US academic institutions as superior devalue and feminize international collaboration unless they translate
into grants and publications in what are considered leading journals and publication houses.
Despite US‐based faculty's intentions to create mutually beneficial collaborative partnerships, the global stratifi-
cation of science and academia and the US institutional rewards structures together impose a hierarchical system that
limits this potential. Power relations embedded within global science create an uneven playing field for negotiating
reciprocity among colleagues with differential access to resources and status. One way professors escape these
tensions is to depict their relationships with colleagues abroad as personal friendships. While the ideal of friendship
may imply egalitarian relationships, academic work is steeped in pervasive intersectional inequalities rooted in uneven
power and status, and hierarchies among collaborators. The friend image cloaks inequalities rooted in academic
nationality, gender, rank, status, field, academic and organizational reputations.
Building on Acker's theories, my research introduces two concepts that reveal gendered inequalities in the
organization of global science. First, gendered images, expectations and practices of international collaboration can
10 ZIPPEL

be exclusionary for women, potentially reproducing gendered inequalities, what I call glass fences. Second, the .edu
bonus (and penalty) in which US science is seen as superior and the gold standard creates an inherently imbalanced
system in which faculty struggle to create mutually beneficial partnerships. Thus, faculty seem to view the ideal of
friendship in international collaboration as a way to bring collaborators from different countries together to deal with
the obstacles of the collaborative process. Friendships appear to be crucial for bridging cultural differences between
researchers and creating trust. With little institutional reward for such collaborations, US professors justify their
efforts for collaboration by emphasizing the positive aspects of having a cosmopolitan lifestyle and finding global
collaborators with whom they like to socialize and work.
Joan Acker called upon gender scholars to think about and analyse the power structures that underlie our
institutions. Her theories not only illustrate gender inequalities, but encourage us to rethink organizations, all organi-
zations, in ways that challenge intersecting forms of inequalities. In this spirit, my research uses Acker's theories to
demonstrate how gender is deeply embedded in the global organization of science and academia. Gendered images
and practices of international research collaboration create glass fences as they work in conjunction with an institu-
tional rewards system that limits women's engagement and recreates structural inequality on a global scale. As US
faculty who engage in (devalued) international activities feel that they jeopardize their career progression, interna-
tional collaboration is likely to be an elite activity that women have less access to (Zippel, 2017, p. 51). Similar to other
activities that do not fit the traditional academic career model, such as entrepreneurial links with industry, those who
feel more secure are more empowered to take ‘risks’, given the gendered organizations of academia overall, these tend
to be men not women (Fox & Xiao, 2013). In addition, as women are more likely than men to be concerned that their
contributions to collaborative research will be less recognized (Misra et al., 2017), women are even more discouraged
from engaging in international collaborations when they are discounted.
Therefore, creating a more inclusive world of global science requires scholars to resist the temptation to accept
the dominant measures for academic success as individual productivity and instead challenge how (internationally)
collaborative research is valued and practised. Acker's legacy has equipped us with theoretical tools to work towards
levelling the playing field in the world of science. We should use them as carefully and skilfully as possible to advance
our knowledge through international collaboration in both theory and practice.

ACKNOWLEDGEMEN TS
The author would like to thank Katrina Uhly, Emily Smykla and Amy Lubitow for their research assistance including
preparing the transcripts and coding. Thanks also to Sorina Vlaicu and Debra Guckenheimer who conducted some
of the interviews. The author is also indebted to Marieke van den Brink, Laurel Smith‐Doerr, Katrina Uhly and Ethel
Mickey who provided useful critical and helpful comments and suggestions. Finally, Gayle Sulik gave editorial
assistance for the article, many thanks to her.

DECLARATION OF CONFLICTING IN TEREST

The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the authorship and/or publication of this article.

ORCID
Kathrin Zippel http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4635-7115

RE FE R ENC ES
Acker, J. (1990). Hierarchies, jobs, bodies: A theory of gendered organizations. Gender & Society, 4, 139–158.

Acker, J. (2006). Inequality regimes: Gender, class, and race in organizations. Gender & Society, 20, 441–464.

Acker, J. (2008). Helpful men and feminist support: More than double strangeness. Gender, Work & Organization, 15,
288–293.
ZIPPEL 11

Bird, S. R. (2011). Unsettling universities’ incongruous, gendered bureaucratic structures: A case study approach. Gender,
Work & Organization, 18, 202–230.
Bozeman, B., Fay, D., & Slade, C. P. (2013). Research collaboration in universities and academic entrepreneurship: The
state‐of‐the‐art. Journal of Technology Transfer, 38(1), 1–67.
Brass, D. J. (1985). Men's and women's networks: A study of interaction patterns and influence in an organization. Academy
Management Journal, 28, 327–343.
Britton, D. M. (2017). Beyond the chilly climate. Gender & Society, 31, 5–27.
Bryant, S. V., & Charmnaz, K. (2007). The Sage handbook of grounded theory. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
Caprile, M., Addis, E., Castaño, C., Meulders, D., Muller, J., Plasman, R. A., … Vallès, N. (2012). Meta‐analysis gender and science
research: Synthesis report. Brussels, Belgium: European Commission.
Connell, R. W., & Wood, J. (2005). Globalization and business masculinities. Men and Masculinities, 7, 347–364.
Currie, J., Thiele, B., & Harris, P. (2002). Gendered universities in globalized economies: Power, careers, and sacrifices. Lanham,
MD: Lexington Books.
Elsevier. (2017). Gender in the global research landscape. Retrieved from https://elsevier.com/research‐intelligence/resource‐
library/gender‐report
Fox, M. F., Realff, M. L., Rueda, D. R., & Morn, J. (2017). International research collaboration among women engineers:
Frequency and perceived barriers, by regions. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 42, 1292–1306.
Fox, M. F., & Xiao, W. (2013). Perceived chances for promotion among women associate professors in computing: Individual,
departmental, and entrepreneurial factors. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 38, 135–152.
Gaughan, M., & Bozeman, B. (2016). Using the prisms of gender and rank to interpret research collaboration power dynamics.
Social Studies of Science, 46, 536–558.
Husu, L., & Morley, L. (2000). Academe and gender: What has and has not changed? Higher Education in Europe, 25, 137–138.
Ibarra, H. (1993). Personal networks of women and minorities in management: A conceptual framework. Academy of Manage-
ment Review, 18, 56–87.
Martin, P. Y. (2003). ‘Said and done’ versus ‘saying and doing’ — Gendering practices, practicing gender at work. Gender &
Society, 17, 342–366.
McPherson, M., Smith‐Lovin, L., & Cook, J. (2001). Birds of a feather: Homophily in social networks. Annual Review of
Sociology, 27, 415–444.
Miller, C. C. (2017). It's not just Mike Pence. Americans are wary of being alone with the opposite sex. New York Times.
Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/01/upshot/members‐of‐the‐opposite‐sex‐at‐work‐gender‐study.
html?_r=0
Misra, J., Smith‐Doerr, L., Dasgupta, N., Weaver, G., & Normanly, J. (2017). Collaboration and gender equity among academic
scientists. Social Sciences, 6(1), 25. http://www.mdpi.com/about/announcements/784
National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, Institute of Medicine, & Committee on Maximizing the
Potential of Women in Academic Science and Engineering (2007). Beyond bias and barriers: Fulfilling the potential of women
in academic science and engineering. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
National Science Board. (2016). Science and Engineering Indicators 2016. Retrieved from https://www.nsf.gov/statistics/
2016/nsb20161/#/
Nielsen, M. W. (2015). New and persistent gender equality challenges in academia (Dissertation). Aarhus University, Aarhus.
O’Meara, K., Kuvaeva, A., Nyunt, G., Waugaman, C., & Jackson, R. (2017). Asked more often: Gender differences in faculty
workload in research universities and the work interactions that shape them. American Educational Research Journal, 54,
1154–1186.
Ramirez, F. O., & Tiplic, D. (2014). In pursuit of excellence? Discursive patterns in European higher education research. Higher
Education, 67, 439–455.
Riegraf, B., Aulenbacher, B., Kirsch‐Auwärter, E., & Müller, U. (Eds.) (2010). GenderChange in academia: Re‐mapping the fields of
work, knowledge, and politics from a gender perspective. Wiesbaden, Germany: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.
Tomaskovic‐Devey, D. (2014). The relational generation of workplace inequalities. Social Currents, 1, 51–73.
Uhly, K., Visser, L., & Zippel, K. (2017). Gendered patterns in international research collaborations in academia. Studies in
Higher Education, 42, 760–782.
van den Brink, M., & Benschop, Y. (2012). Slaying the seven‐headed dragon: The quest for gender change in academia.
Gender, Work & Organization, 19, 71–92.
12 ZIPPEL

van den Brink, M., & Benschop, Y. (2014). Gender in academic networking: The role of gatekeepers in professorial
recruitment. Journal of Management Studies, 51, 460–492.
Zippel, K. (2017). Women in global science: Advancing careers through international collaboration. Stanford, CA: Stanford
University Press.

Kathrin Zippel's current research explores gender and global transformations of science and education. In her
book, Women in Global Science: Advancing Careers Through International Collaboration (Stanford University
Press, 2017), she argues that global science is a new frontier for women, providing both opportunities and chal-
lenges as gender shapes the dynamics and practices of international research. She has also published on gender
politics in the workplace, public and social policy, social movements, welfare states, and globalization in the United
States and Europe. Her book The Politics of Sexual Harassment in the United States, the European Union and
Germany (Cambridge University Press, 2006) won several awards.

How to cite this article: Zippel K. Gendered images of international research collaboration. Gender Work
Organ. 2018;1–12. https://doi.org/10.1111/gwao.12233