KaydedilenlerDerginizi ekleyin

Dergiler / Anadolu Eğitim Liderliği ve Öğretim Dergisi / 2025 / Cilt: 13 Sayı: 2

Kadın Okul Müdürlerine Simgesel Temsilcilik ve Kurumsal Simgesel Statü

Tokenism and The Institutional Token Status of Female Principals

Hilal Erkol(İzmit Lisesi, MEB)0000-0001-6837-9887
Engin Aslanargun(DÜZCE ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0002-4965-0229
Sayfa
50–63
Yayın Tarihi
2026-01-02
DOI
—
🏛️Bu makalenin bibliyografik verileri ve tam metin bağlantısı DergiPark üzerinden sağlanmıştır.
DergiPark Kaydı ↗
✨

Yapay Zeka Hızlı Bakış & Çıkarımlar

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(1 Cümlede Hızlı Çıkarım)

Ayrıca, araştırma sonuçları, kadınların sosyal hayattaki rolleri, çalışma hayatındaki sayısal varlıkları ve cinsiyete dayalı olarak yaşadıkları ayrımcılığın hem Doğu hem de Batı toplumlarında yaygın olduğunu göstermektedir.

📌 3 Maddede Bu Makale

🎯
Amaç & Hipotez:Bu çalışmanın amacı, kadın okul müdürlerinin bakış açısıyla okul yönetimini anlamak ve eğitim örgütlerindeki simgesel statülerinin nedenlerini ve sonuçlarını araştırmaktır.
📊
Temel Bulgular & Veri:Bu araştırmada hermeneutik fenomenoloji yöntemi kullanılmıştır.
💡
Sonuç & Katkı:Ayrıca, araştırma sonuçları, kadınların sosyal hayattaki rolleri, çalışma hayatındaki sayısal varlıkları ve cinsiyete dayalı olarak yaşadıkları ayrımcılığın hem Doğu hem de Batı toplumlarında yaygın olduğunu göstermektedir.
🔬Tür:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Kapsam:Genişletilmiş Akademik Örneklem
⚙️Değişkenler:Kadın okul müdürleri · kadın okul müdürlerinin sembolik statüsünün nedenleri · kadın okul müdürlerinin sembolik statüsünün sonuçları

Özet

Bu çalışmanın amacı, kadın okul müdürlerinin bakış açısıyla okul yönetimini anlamak ve eğitim örgütlerindeki simgesel statülerinin nedenlerini ve sonuçlarını araştırmaktır. Bu araştırmada hermeneutik fenomenoloji yöntemi kullanılmıştır. Araştırmanın bireysel sonuçları arasında kadınların sorumlulukları nedeniyle zaman yetersizliği, aile desteğinin eksikliği ve kadın okul müdürlerini destekleyen kavramların yokluğu; sosyal sonuçlar arasında kadınların toplumdaki ikincil konumu, mesleki kalıplaşmış yargılar, bürokratik engeller ve çevrelerindeki insanların olumsuz bakış açıları; ve örgütsel sonuçlar arasında bürokratik bir örgütsel yapı ve cinsiyet ayrımcılığına dayalı bir örgütsel kültür yer almaktadır. Kadın okul müdürlerinin sembolik statüsünün bir sonucu olarak, eylemleri daha görünür hale gelmekte ve bu durum performans baskısına ve yalnızlık duygusuna neden olmaktadır. Ayrıca, araştırma sonuçları, kadınların sosyal hayattaki rolleri, çalışma hayatındaki sayısal varlıkları ve cinsiyete dayalı olarak yaşadıkları ayrımcılığın hem Doğu hem de Batı toplumlarında yaygın olduğunu göstermektedir.

Abstract

The aim of this study is to understand school management from the perspective of female school principals and investigate the causes and results of having token status in educational institutions. Hermeneutic phenemology is used in this research. Individual results of the research include a lack of time due to women's responsibilities, a lack of family support, and the absence of notions supporting female school principals; social results include women's secondary position in society, occupational stereotypes, red tape, and negative perspectives of people around them; and organizational results include a bureaucratic organizational structure and an organizational culture based on gender discrimination. As a result of the token status of female school principals, their actions are visible, which causes performance pressure and a feeling of loneliness in their organizations. Also, research results show that the role of women in social life, their numerical existence in working life, and the discrimination based on gender they experience are familiar in both Eastern and Western societies.

🔖

Bu Makaleye Atıf Yap

Erkol, H., Aslanargun, E. (2026). Kadın Okul Müdürlerine Simgesel Temsilcilik ve Kurumsal Simgesel Statü. Anadolu Eğitim Liderliği ve Öğretim Dergisi, Cilt: 13 Sayı: 2, 50–63. https://ajindex.com/articles/1281413

📄 Tam Metin PDF Okuyucu

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

Kaynakça (84)

  1. Abreu-Hornsbostel, E. M. (2012). A phenomelogical study exploring henomenological study exploring the mentorship experiences of women managers (3503068). [Doctoral Dissertation, Capella University]. Proquest Dissertations & Theses Global.
  2. Acker, J. (2006). Inequality regimes: Gender, class, and race in organizations. Gender & Society, 20 (4), 441-464. https://doi.org/10.1177/0891243206289499.
  3. Ajjawi, R. & Higgs, J. (2007). Using hermeneutic phenomenology to investigate how experienced practitioners learn to communicate clinical reasoning. The Qualitative Report, 12 (4), 612-638.
  4. Aslanargun, E. (2009). İlköğretim ve lise müdürlerinin okul yönetiminde kullandığı güç türleri (324825). [Docroral Dissertation, Ankara Üniversitesi]. Yükseköğretim Kurumu Başkanlığı Ulusal Tez Merkezi.
  5. Aslanargun, E. (2012). Do women principals really face with barriers in schools? Critics of Glass Ceiling Syndrome in Turkey. International Online Journal of Educational Sciences, 4 (2), 255-264.
  6. Blackmore, J. & Rennie, L. (1999). Answering back. Girls, boys and feminism in schools. London: Routledge.
  7. Bond, M. A. & Pyle, J. L. (1994). Workforce diversity: Status, controversies and an interdisciplinary approach. [Conference presentation]. Annual Meeting of the American Psychological Association, Conference Papers, 150, 2 – 77.
  8. Britton, D. M. (2000). The epistomology of the gendered organization. Gender & Society, 14 (3), 418-434. https://doi.org/10.1177/089124300014003004
  9. Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (3rd edition.). Los Angeles: CA: Sage.
  10. Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design. Choosing among five approaches (2nd edition). California: Sage Publications.
  11. Crocker, J. & Mc Graw, K. (1984). What’s good for the goose is not good for the gander. Solo status as an obstacle to occupational achievement for males and females. American Behavioral Scientist, 27 (3), 357-369. https://doi.org/10.1177/000276484027003007
  12. Crompton, R. & Sanderson, K. (1990). Credentials and Careers. ( Ed.Payne, G. & Abbott, P). The Social Mobility of Women: Beyond Male Mobility Models. The Falmer Press, 83–100.
  13. Coffrey, R.E., Cook, C. W. & Hunsaker, P. L. (1994). Management and organizational behavior. The USA: McGraw-Hill.
  14. Collinson, D. ve Hearn, J. (1994). Naming men as men: Implications for work, organization and management. Gender, Work & Organization, 1 (1), 2-22. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0432.1994.tb00002.x
  15. Connell, R.W. (2005). Masculinities (second edition). California: University of California Press.
  16. Constantinoble, A. (1982). A critique of in search of token women in academia. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 7 (2), 162-168. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.1983.tb00828.x
  17. Cooke, F. L. (2003). Equal opportunity? Women's managerial careers in governmental organizations in China. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 14 (2), 317-333. https://doi.org/10.1080/0958519021000029144
  18. David, M. & Woodward, D. (1998). Negotiating the glass ceiling: Careers of senior women in the academic world. The USA: Taylor and Francis.
  19. Denzin, N. K. & Lincoln, Y. S. (2005). The sage handbook of qualitative research (3rd edition). California: Sage Publications.
  20. Eagly, A. H. & Steffen, V.J. (1984). Gender stereotypes stem from the distribution of women and men into social roles. Journal or Personality and Social Psychology, 46 (4), 735-754. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.46.4.735
  21. England, P. (2010). The gender revolution: Uneven and stalled. Gender & Society, 24 (2), 149-166. https://doi.org/10.1177/0891243210361475
  22. Ferree, M. M. (1990). Beyond seperate shapes: Feminism and family research. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 52, 866 – 884. https://doi.org/10.2307/353307
  23. Fullagar, C.J., M. Sverke, H.C. Sümer, & R. Slick. (2003). Managerial sex-role Stereotyping: A cross cultural analysis. International Journal of Cross Cultural Management, 3 (1), 93-107. https://doi.org/10.1177/1470595803003001112
  24. Friedman, S. D. & Greenhaus, J. D. (2000). Work and Family – Allies or Enemies? What Happens When Business Professionals Confront Life Choices. UK: Oxford University Press.
  25. Gardone-Bergstrom, C. A. (2004). Profiling women managers: The road to success and lessons learned (3132733). [Doctoral Dissertation, Capella University]. Proquest Dissertations & Theses Global.
  26. Geys, B. (2013). Better not look too nice? Employees' preferences towards (un)likeable managers. The Leadership Quarterly, 25 (5), 875-884. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2014.02.001
  27. Glesne, C. (2012). Nitel araştırmaya giriş (çev. Ersoy ve Yalçınoğlu). Ankara: Anı Yayıncılık.
  28. Gustafson, J. L. (2008). Tokenism in policing: An empirical test of Kanter's hypothesis. Journal of Criminal Justice, 36 (1), 1–10.
  29. Hearn, J. (1992). Men in the public eye. Critical studies on men and masculanities (4th Edition) The USA: Chapman and Hall Inc.
  30. Hersch, J. (1991). Male-female differences in hourly wages: The role of human capital, working conditions, and housework, Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 44 (4), 746–759. https://doi.org/10.1177/001979399104400410
  31. Holmes, J. (2006). Gendered talk at work. Constructing social identity through workplace interaction. Australia: Blackwell Publishing.
  32. Jagusztyn, N. E. (2010). Perceived workplace discrimination. A mediator of the relationship between work enviroment and employee outcomes: Does minority status matter? (3425635). [Doctoral Dissertation, University of South Florida]. Proquest Dissertations & Theses Global.
  33. Kanter, R.M. (1977). Some effects of proportions on group life: Skewed sex ratios and responses to token women. The American Journal of Sociology, 82 (5), 965-990.
  34. Kanter, R.M. (1993). Men and women of the coorperation.New York: Basic Books
  35. Kanter, R.M. (2003). Frontiers of management. Boston: Harward Business School P.
  36. Kim, M. A. (2010). Child care teachers’ perceptions of their work as women’s work (3428990). [Doctoral Dissertation, The University of Texas]. Proquest Dissertations & Theses Global.
  37. Kirchmeyer, C. (2002). Gender differences in managerial careers: Yesterday, today, and tomorrow. Journal of Business Ethics, 37, 5–24.
  38. Kvale, S. (2006). Dominance through interviews and dialogues. Qualitative Inquiry, 12 (3), 480-500. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800406286235
  39. Laws, J. L. (1975). The psychology of tokenism: An analysis. Sex Roles, 1 (1),51-67.
  40. Limbach, B. J. (1994). A study of female managers on sex – Typed characteristics (9503424). [Doctoral Dissertation, University of Wyoming]. Proquest Dissertations & Theses Global.
  41. Madden, M. P. (2008). Women prepairing for men’s occupations: A phenomenology (3310937). [Doctoral Dissertation, University of Denver]. Proquest Dissertations & Theses Global.
  42. Maddock S. & Parkin D. (1994). Women in management. Current Research Issues. (Ed. by Davidson and Burke). London: Paul Chapman Publishing.
  43. Malhotra, S. & Sachdeva, S. (2005). Social roles and role conflict: An interprofessional study among women. Journal of the Indian Academy of Applied Psychology, 31 (1 -2), 37-42.
  44. Manwa (2002). Think manager – Think male: Does it apply to Zimbabwe? Department of Business Studies, University of Zimbabwe, Zimbabwe. https://doi.org/10.4314/zjh.v29i1.6720
  45. Marks, S. R. (1977). Multiple roles and role strain: Some notes on human energy, time and commitment. American Sociological Review, 42 (6), 921-936. https://doi.org/10.2307/2094577
  46. Mathe, C. S. (1989). Marginal woman: A study of The homemaker entering the workplace (133575). [Master Thesis, California State University]. Proquest Dissertations & Theses Global.
  47. Mathipa, E. R. & Tsoka, E. M. (2001). Possible barriers to the advancement of women to leadership positions in the education profession. South African Journal of Education, 21(4), 324-331.
  48. Moorisi, P. (2010). South African female principals' career paths: Understanding the gender gap in secondary school management. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 38 (5), 547-562. https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143210373741
  49. Moreton, A. L. (2001). Career paths of female chief academic officers in the council for christian colleges and universities (3030082). [Doctoral Dissertation, University of Nort Texas]. Proquest Dissertations & Theses Global.
  50. Moore, E.A. (2011). Black deaf administrators: Leadership issues and perceived challenges to organizational advancement (3467389). [Doctoral Dissertation, Gallaudet University]. Proquest Dissertations & Theses Global.
  51. Neale, J. & Özkanlı, Ö. (2010). Organisational barriers for women in senior management: A comparison of Turkish and New Zealand universities. Gender and Education, 22 (5), 547-563. https://doi.org/10.1080/09540250903524113
  52. O’Donoghue, T. & Punch, K. (2003). Qualitative educational research in action. Doing and reflecting. The USA and Canada: RoutledgeFalmer
  53. Parker, B. & Fagenson, E. A. (1994). An introductory overview of women in corporate management (Ed. Davidson and Burke). London: Paul Chapman.
  54. Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods (3rd edition). California: Sage Publications.
  55. Percupchick, H. (2011). Women in leadership: Understanding potential drivers/restrainers of female progression in the workplace (3467494). [Doctoral Dissertation, University of Phoenix]. Proquest Dissertations & Theses Global.
  56. Powell, G. N., Butterfield, A. & Parent, J. D. (2002). Gender and Managerial Stereotypes: Have the Times Changed? Journal of Management, 28 (2),177-193. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920630202800203
  57. Prentice, D. A. & Carranza, E. (2002). What women and men should be, shouldn’t be, are allowed to be and don’t have to be: The contents of prescriptive gender stereotypes. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 26, 269-281. https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-6402.t01-1-00066
  58. Prime, Carter & Welbourne (2009). Women “Take care,” men “Take charge”: Managers’ stereotypic perceptions of women and men leaders. The Psychologist-Manager Journal, 12, 25-49. https://doi.org/10.1080/10887150802371799
  59. Ray, T. E. (2001). Defining the tokenism mechanism at work in groups (3016292). [Doctoral Dissertation, North Carolina State University]. Proquest Dissertations & Theses Global.
  60. Ridgeway, C. L. (2009). Framed before we know it: How gender shapes social relations. Gender and Society, 23 (2), 145-160.
  61. Risman, B.J. (2004). Gender as a social structure. Theory wrestling with activism. Gender and Society, 18 (4), 429-450. https://doi.org/10.1177/0891243204265349
  62. Ryan, M. K., Haslam, S. A., Hersby, M. D. & Bongiorno, R. (2011). Think crisis–think female: The glass cliff and contextual variation in the think manager–Think male stereotype. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96 (3), 470-484. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022133
  63. Sağlam, A. Ç. & Bostancı, A. B. (2012). Milli eğitim bakanlığı merkez ve taşra örgütleri yönetim pozisyonlarında kadınların temsil edilme düzeyine yönelik yönetici görüşleri, Uşak Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 5 (2), 140-155.
  64. Sax, L. (1996). The dynamics of tokenism: How college students are affected by the proportion of women in their major, Research in Higher Education, 37 (4), 389 – 425.
  65. Schein, V. E. & Mueller, R. (1992). Sex role streotyping and requisite management characteristics: A cross cultural look. Journal of Organizational Behaviour. 13 (5), 439 -447. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.4030130502
  66. Schein, V. E. (1994). Managerial sex typing: A persistent and pervasive barrier to women’s opportunities (Ed. Davidson and Burke). London: Paul Chapman.
  67. Schein, Mueller, Lituchy & Liu (1996). Think manager – Think male: A global phenemenon. Journal of Organizational Behaviour, 17, 33- 41.
  68. Schein (2001). A global look at psychological barriers to women’s progress in management. Journal of Social Issues, 57 (4), 675–688. https://doi.org/10.1111/0022-4537.00235
  69. Sperandio, J. (2010). Context and The Gendered Status Of Teachers: Women's Empowerment Through Leadership Of Non-formal Schooling in Rural Bangladesh. Gender and Education,23 (2), 121-135.
  70. Siann, G. (1994). Gender, sex and sexuality: Contemporary psychological perspectives. London: Taylor and Francis.
  71. Simmel, G. (1950). The sociology of George Simmel (Ed. by Wolf). the USA: Knickerbocker Printing Corp.
  72. Smith, T. A. (2001). A hermeneutic-phenomenological exploration of person-to-person authentic encounters (3034501). [Doctoral Dissertation, Saybrook Graduate School and Research Center]. Proquest Dissertations & Theses Global.
  73. Springer, C. (1998). Electronic eros. İstanbul: Sarmal Kitabevi
  74. Stokes, M. (2011). The career paths of African American male senior administrators in student affairs at predominantly white institutions: Formal and informal leadership experiences (). [Doctoral Dissertation, Southern Illinois University]. Proquest Dissertations & Theses Global.
  75. Taylor, S.E., Peplau L.A. & Sears, D.O. (2010). Sosyal Psikoloji. Ankara: İmge Yayınevi.
  76. Vaughan, H. (2011). Term limits and Tokenism: Increasing female representation in State legislatures (1491562). [Master Dissertation, Georgetown University]. Proquest Dissertations & Theses Global.
  77. Warning R. & Buchanan F. R. (2009). An exploration of unspoken bias: Women who work for women. Gender in Management: An İnternational Journal, 24 (2), 131 – 145. https://doi.org/10.1108/17542410910938817
  78. Weber, L. (1998). A conceptual framework for understanding race, class, gender and sexuality. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 22, 13-32. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.1998.tb00139.x
  79. Wyn, J., Acker, S. & Richards, E. (2010). Making a difference: Women in management in Australian and Canadian faculties of education. Gender and Education, 12 (4), 435-447. https://doi.org/10.1080/09540250020004081
  80. Yoder, J. D. & Sinnett, L. M. (1985). Is it all numbers? A case study of Tokenism. Psychology of Women Qarterly, 9 (3) 413-418. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.1985.tb00890.x
  81. Yoder, J. (1991). Official publication of sociologists for women in society. Gender and Society, 5, 178-192.
  82. Zimmer, L. (1988). Tokenism and women in the workplace: The limits of gender – Neutral theory. Social problems, 35 (1), 64-77. https://doi.org/10.2307/800667
  83. Manwa (2002). Think manager – Think male: Does it apply to Zimbabwe? Department of Business Studies, University of Zimbabwe, Zimbabwe. https://doi.org/10.4314/zjh.v29i1.6720
  84. Ridgeway, C. L. (2009). Framed before we know it: How gender shapes social relations. Gender and Society, 23 (2), 145-160.