Feminist academics who led a mass walkout from the world¡¯s leading women¡¯s studies journal have been accused of hypocrisy and ¡°white privilege¡± for failing to consider its likely impact on early career researchers.

In March 2024, hundreds of scholars?signed a resignation letter?accusing US publisher Wiley of ¡°sabotaging 30 years of world-class scholarship¡± by appointing a trio of what they described as business academics specialising in entrepreneurship and marketing to run the journal?Gender, Work & Organization?(GWO).

Claiming the journal was ¡°moving away from its long-established critical gender and feminist roots¡± towards publishing ¡°high-volume, low-quality and mainstream management papers¡±, current and former editors and reviewers urged others to boycott the journal, including withdrawing papers already submitted to what bibliographic group Scimago rated as the world¡¯s most highly ranked gender journal.

While??was widely praised on social media ¨C eventually gaining more than 550 signatures ¨C the boycott has now been heavily criticised in a published in the journal?Equality, Diversity and Inclusion,?which highlights the ¡°unintended negative consequences¡± of the walkout, in particular the career damage caused to early career researchers.

51³Ô¹Ï

Drawing on interviews with staff of all levels connected to the journal, its authors argue that many senior signatories of the letter had been rewarded from their ¡°moral entrepreneurship¡± with editorial roles at similarly lofty journals ¨C a case of ¡°converting moral credits associated with the mass resignation to move on and up¡±.

In contrast, more junior signatories ¡°have not experienced the same benefits and career mobility after the outset of the academic boycott¡±, with some potentially missing out on jobs after withdrawing submissions, claims the paper, titled ¡°Anatomy of a mass resignation: moral entrepreneurship and academic outsiders within¡±.

51³Ô¹Ï

¡°If you publish a paper in this journal, you¡¯re much more likely to get an academic job. But many early career researchers were explicitly encouraged to withdraw their papers from GWO,¡± Mustafa Ozbilgin, professor of organisational behaviour at Brunel University of London, who co-authored the study with New York University Abu Dhabi researcher Milena Tekeste, explained to?51³Ô¹Ï.

¡°Those behind the boycott were often professors, deans or academics with secure contracts ¨C they looked amazing for their moral entrepreneurship, but they already had a lot of social capital, often being based at elite institutions.

¡°Nine months later many of these early career researchers still don¡¯t have jobs and I don¡¯t see anyone from this protest employing them.

¡°There is also an element of white privilege here too as minority ethnic scholars were encouraged to join this protest,¡± he continued, saying it was important to acknowledge the ¡°winners and losers¡± of these protests.

51³Ô¹Ï

¡°It has a sinister side ¨C in these protests, some can accumulate social assets ¨C namely they look like they¡¯re changing the system ¨C but others incur [career] damage,¡± he said, with his paper claiming it would be ¡°career-ending¡± for junior researchers to publish in the fledgling journal which the GWO defectors hoped to create given its lack of standing.

Resources for early career researchers

On the ¡°polarising impact¡± of the boycott, those who stuck with GWO might also be ¡°marked as anti-protest¡± and face stigma from defectors as a result, said Ozbilgin.

Those sentiments are reflected by many of the scholars cited in the study ¨C one of whom called the boycott ¡°one-sided and simplistic¡±, seeing a ¡°divide between those who would be the ¡®good gender scholars¡¯ and the ill-intentioned others¡±.

Another explained how the schism had led to a ¡°bitter choice¡­between cutting ties to the journal or being ostracised and marginalised by a powerful group of established scholars and by a horde of followers. It is sad, but we are all losing,¡± they said.

51³Ô¹Ï

Suggesting that ¡°virtue signalling through the academic boycott of a single journal¡± was ¡°ineffective¡± in striking a blow against a wider commercial publishing system and ¡°hypocritical¡± in its lack of ¡°feminist care and solidarity¡± for junior researchers, the paper calls on would-be boycotters to consider how such protests are ¡°are harming the most vulnerable in attempts to fight superstructures like the publishing system¡±.

A representative of those behind the walkout approached by?THE?declined to comment on the critique, referring back to the group¡¯s previous statements.

51³Ô¹Ï

Acknowledging the importance of principled protest, Ozbilgin said: ¡°The reasons for this boycott are commendable but we need to look across the whole system when we drag minority groups into a protest where they will come out much worse than those leading these efforts.¡±

jack.grove@timeshighereducation.com