Reflections of Undergraduate Business Education Alumnae: Shifting Perspectives on Gender and Work

Women are entering higher education at the greatest rate in history (NCES, 2012). They are succeeding and graduating with degrees relevant to leadership and business and are entering the workforce in record numbers (Catalyst, 2013; Eagly & Carli, 2007). But then women seemingly stall out (Barsh & Yee, 2011; Catalyst, 2013; Soares, Cobb, et al., 2011). The further up the ladder women climb – the fewer their numbers. Numerous literature streams document the potential causes and effects of this phenomenon. This qualitative study sought to augment the current literature that has ignored the impact of undergraduate business education on that phenomenon. A narrative study provided the opportunity to document stories from women in undergraduate business education, a group that has until now been rendered silent by the prevailing positivistic approaches to research privileged in the discipline and a lack of focus on this population. The study employed semi-structured interviews and electronic communications to allow ten undergraduate business alumnae to share stories about their college and professional experience and their perceptions about the impact of those experiences on their aspirations and life choices. Thematic narrative analysis rendered eight emergent themes about women’s experiences before and after college. The findings suggest ambivalence and denial about gender inequality while in college. They also point to significant shifts in the perceptions of gender, the gender gap and its personal implications once women enter the work world. Additionally, women reflected on the sometimes unrealistic, minimal, and even negative impact of their college experiences on their perceptions of the importance of gender in their future careers. Participant observations and reflections point to


My Background and Interest in the Topic
Women are entering higher education at the greatest rate in history (NCES, 2012). They are succeeding and graduating with degrees relevant to leadership and business and are entering the workforce in record numbers (Catalyst, 2013;Eagly & Carli, 2007). But then women seemingly stall out (Barsh & Yee, 2011;Catalyst, 2013;Soares, Cobb, et al., 2011). The further up the ladder women climb -the fewer their numbers. The number of women at the top of the Fortune 500 is far from representative of 50% of the population (Barsh & Yee, 2011;Catalyst, 2013;Soares, Cobb, et al., 2011). This is a problem: for women, men, organizations and global economic growth. Many have researched the causes behind this problem. So in trying to understand why more women are not reaching top leadership roles, I wanted to start by researching one input to the pipeline of women talent in which I currently had a stake-undergraduate business education. This group has largely been ignored in the literature.
In 1987, as a Navy Midshipman on a Fourth Class cruise, I discovered that numbers and timing matter. Among the first and few women to board ships in the U.S. Navy as officers in training, I found myself overwhelmed with the prospect of forging the way for women in the U.S. Navy, despite high academic achievement, an assertive personality and a feminist upbringing. After an agonizing summer weighing my options -to stay or walk away from my dream of being a marine pilot and leader as well as the financial support-I gave up my 4-year scholarship to pursue other careers where I perceived greater gender equity and opportunity.
Fast-forward to 1995 and my entry into corporate America. After graduating as one of the 20% women graduates from an elite Ivy League MBA program with multiple competing offers, I chose to join General Electric (GE) because of the opportunities I believed I would have for leadership. Once I started, I did not lack support from my superiors or my family. I was given huge, highly visible assignments at which I excelled. However, a sense of déjà vu quickly overwhelmed my optimism.
I was one of few women in a heavily industrial, masculine organization-there were even fewer women in leadership roles at GE than there had been in the Navy. I was once again a pioneer in a world defined by men. Observing other women in the organization, I realized that in order to succeed in this environment, I would have to make clear statements about who I was, consider how I talked and dressed, and avoid behaviors that would emphasize my gender or interest in someday having a family.
Unwilling to compromise my core identity, after a few years, I eventually chose to leave the organization, but continued to work with GE, on my terms, as a consultant for more than ten years.
In 2013, given the numbers of women graduating college and in the workforce, I hoped that things had evolved, that more women would be staying and climbing the ladder to the top of corporate America. However, while progress has been made, women are still the overwhelming minority in corporate leadership.
As a faculty member in an undergraduate business school, I am frustrated with the numbers of women undergraduates, faculty and graduates as compared to university enrollments. Critiques of higher education (HE) argue that the climate of HE is not supportive of diverse students, and even more so for women in highly masculinized majors such as business and science, technology, engineering and math (STEM) (AAUW, 1994(AAUW, , 1999Bertrand, Goldin, & Katz, 2010;Brainard & Carlin, 1997;Turner & Bowen, 1998). My own experience supports these critiques. The numbers of women in business schools, while not as dire as in STEM, are still disappointing in relation to gender equity. As I talk to women juniors and seniors in the business school, I am baffled; they speak of low aspirations, unrealistic or no expectations. Few have developed a feminist worldview seeing gender equality as a admirable goal. This led me to investigate the following research questions: 1. How, if at all, do business school alumnae make meaning of the gendered climate of the business profession?
2. What role, if any, do alumnae believe their college experiences played in shaping their understanding of, preparation for, and aspirations in the traditionally masculine professional world of work?

Statement of the Problem
While there appear to be a large number of qualified women in the pipeline to business leadership, they are still failing to reach the top. The impact of this phenomenon has individual, organizational and global effects. The World Economic Forum's Global Gender Gap Report (2013) quantifies the magnitude of existing gender-based inequalities across health, education, economic and political measures worldwide and explores the subsequent impact of those inequalities on national GDP and international competitiveness. Despite near perfect gender equity in education (equity in literacy rates, enrollment at all levels of education) and health (equity in birth rates and life expectancy), the United States ranks 23 rd because of the continued disparities in political and economic power for women (WEF, 2013). American women continue to have less access to political and economic power despite increasing participation in the workforce. They are underrepresented in national elected office and higher levels of management (WEF, 2013). The report concludes that education plays a key role in empowering women and engaging men in changing the playing field across all measures.

Significance of the Study
While research has explored the role of structural barriers for women in nontraditional fields, women's career development in general, and the experiences of women in STEM careers and degree programs, little research has been conducted about business school alumnae. Davis and Geyfman (2012) found that in Pennsylvania, women were significantly statistically underrepresented in undergraduate colleges of business. A study in Canada found gender segregation in business major/specialization choice as well (Hunt & Song, 2013). While choice of major has a direct impact on first job out of school (NACE, 2012) and on subsequent opportunities for growth in large organizations, in isolation, it tells us little about the experience of women who do major in business.
Critics of management and business education have long argued the need for change in faculty gender composition, curriculum, and pedagogy to address the reported gender bias that shapes the business school experience (Mavin & Bryans, 1999;Mavin, Bryans, & Waring, 2004;Miller & Sisk, 2012;Simpson, 2006;

REVIEW OF LITERATURE
Women are underrepresented in corporate settings in general and leadership roles in particular (Barsh & Yee, 2011;Catalyst, 2013). This underrepresentation has wide ranging individual, organizational and economic implications. The workplace climate continues to be dominated by men and masculine belief systems or discourse(s)-ideologies that privilege masculine identity (Billing, 2011;Curtis, 2013;Eagly & Carli, 2007). Discourses "are ways of constituting knowledge, together with the social practices, forms of subjectivity and power relations which inhere in such knowledges and the relations between them" (Weedon, 1997, p. 105). As used in this study, the masculine discourse of organizations is defined as a formative context (Crawford & Mills, 2011)-a social framework of widely accepted formed routines, gendered work practices and norms that privilege the life situations and interests of men and are systematically biased against women (Billing, 2011;Crawford & Mills, 2011;Meyerson & Kolb, 2000). This masculine discourse is particularly evident and persistent in science, technology, engineering and math (STEM) and some business fields (AAUW, 1994;Eagan, 2013;NSF, 2013). Literature shows that the underrepresentation of women in work settings has educational roots (AAUW, 1994;Eagan, 2013;NSF, 2013). Women continue to be significantly underrepresented in some STEM and business majors despite their majority enrollment in post-secondary education (AAUW, 1994;NCES 2012). Women students in men dominated disciplines and majors like business face many challenges.

Gender Inequality in Business and Education: The Realities
Despite gains, women continue to be underrepresented in the masculine world of corporate business leadership (Catalyst, 2013;Eagly & Carli, 2007). In 2010, following three decades of steady increases, women earned 58% of all undergraduate degrees (NCES, 2012). During this same period, women entered the workforce in record numbers-48% of the overall workforce and 53% of new hires in corporate America (Barsh & Yee, 2011). Yet, women were estimated to hold only 37% of first line manager roles (first leadership role after individual contributor role), 26% of vice president roles, 14% of executive committee (c-suite) positions-largely in less promotable staff roles-and only 3-4% of Chief Executive Officers (CEO) in the Fortune 500 (Barsh & Yee, 2011;Catalyst, 2013;Soares, Cobb, et al., 2011). The value of having women in organizational leadership has been well established, particularly during the most recent global financial crisis (Ferrary, 2013;Soares, Cobb, et al., 2011). Companies with the highest representation of women leaders outperformed companies with the lowest (Soares, Marquis, & Lee, 2011).
Parallel to women's growing participation in the workplace, women's participation in post-secondary education has increased significantly in the last 20 years. The Higher Education Research Institute (HERI) reported that in 2013, approximately 56% of incoming college freshman nationally were women (Eagan, Lozano, Hurtado, & Case, 2013). Studies show that women are more likely to persist in college and obtain degrees (DiPrete & Buchmann, 2013;NCES, 2012). In fact, women reported having higher educational aspirations than their men peers (NCES, 2012). Women reportedly value and desire undergraduate and graduate degrees and have higher academic achievement (NCES, 2012). While their overall participation in post-secondary education has increased, women are still significantly underrepresented in non-traditional, men-dominated majors such as science, technology, engineering and math (STEM) and business (AAUW, 1994(AAUW, , 1999Bertrand et al., 2010;Brainard & Carlin, 1997;Turner & Bowen, 1998).
In 2010, women earned 58% of all undergraduate degrees (NCES, 2012), but only 34-37% of all business degrees. In 2013, 14.8 % of incoming freshman indicated an intention to major in business, but only 39% of declared business majors were women (Eagan et al., 2013). Thirty-four percent of business majors at the University in this study were women and large disparities existed within business major specialties; for example, Marketing had a 57% women enrollment, while Finance had only 18% women enrollment. These statistics are in agreement with national studies of gender segregation across fields of study (Barone, 2011). Studies in both Pennsylvania and Canada found gender segregation in business major/specialization choice as well (Hunt & Song, 2013).
Choice of major has a direct impact on first job out of school (Jacobs, 1996;NACE, 2012) and on subsequent opportunities for career growth. Employers have voiced a preference for Finance and other quantitative majors as a background for the corporate leadership pipeline (Bertrand et al., 2010;NACE, 2012). Careers in these areas are more highly paid (Davies & Guppy, 1997) and these are the majors that enroll a higher percentage of men students.
Studies of structural gender inequity have revealed that persistent gender discrimination has led to, among other less quantifiable things, a gender gap in pay nationally (Evers & Sieverding, 2013) which persists despite legal and policy changes (Liang, 2008). In 2012, women earned on average 77% of what men in the same positions earned (AAUW, 2013).
The literature provides myriad reasons explaining and illuminating the phenomenon of underrepresentation of women in the workplace (Burke & Major, 2014;Devillard, Graven, Lawson, Paradise, & Sancier-Sultan, 2012;Eagly & Carli, 2007;Germain, Herzog, & Hamilton, 2012;Hall & Sandler, 1982;Johns, 2013;Maranto & Griffin, 2010;Watt & Eccles, 2008). The U.S. Glass Ceiling Commission (1995) first named and confirmed the existence of a glass ceiling (Hymowitz & Schellhardt, 1986) for women that prevents them from reaching the top leadership roles in organizations. This invisible, but solid, barrier was described as being constructed of widely held beliefs about women that relied on traditional female stereotypes and implied that investment in women employees was risky. Women were widely viewed as likely to leave to raise a family as they lacked commitment to careers. Organizations believed that clients (men) would not want to work with them.
It has since been argued that the glass ceiling has been shattered, as there are some examples of women who have broken through and are successfully leading in corporate positions (Eagly & Carli, 2007). However, anecdotal and empirical evidence indicates that there are still significant challenges (Catalyst, 1993(Catalyst, , 2011(Catalyst, , 2013Johns, 2013). Eagly and Carli (2007) argued that while there may be openings in the glass ceiling, the ceiling has been replaced with a labyrinth-where not everyone finds the path to the top through the subtle and not so subtle barriers that still exist.
Next, I review the various streams of literature that have sought to describe and explain the persistence of a gender inequality in organizations, the barriers that impede women's participation and advancement and the impact of these phenomena on women. These include: persistent gender stereotypes and discrimination; the double bind; tokenism; impact of role models and access to social and organizational norms; challenges of balancing work and family; coping mechanisms (i.e., tempered aspirations, adoption of masculine behaviors); stereotype threat and low self-efficacy; and the pervasive impacts of all of these on women's aspirations and life choices.

Gender Stereotypes and Discrimination
Overt gender discrimination in education and employment, while legally prohibited for more than a half of a century (Title IX of the Education Act of 1972, Title VII of the Civil Rights Acts of 1963 and 1991), still exists and has led to characterizations of a "chilly climate" for women across organizational contexts (Blickenstaff, 2005;Curtis, 2013;Fouad & Singh, 2011;Germain et al., 2012;Hall & Sandler, 1982;Hill, Corbett, & St. Rose, 2010;Maranto & Griffin, 2010). Women in diverse men-dominated fields continue to report structural, cultural and organizational barriers to achievement (Devillard et al., 2012;Germain et al., 2012;Johns, 2013).
These studies point to traditional sex-role and gender stereotypes held by both men and women that form the foundation of barriers for women (e.g., contradictory gender based expectations for behavior, unequal treatment by peers and organizations, lack of role models, social stigma). Researchers argue that these barriers have a direct impact on life choices such as major, career, and advancement (Eagly & Carli, 2007;Powell & Butterfield, 1979, 1981Sadker & Zittleman. 2009).
For example, views of the ideal employee, manager and leader continue to be associated with men and masculine identities (Alvesson, 1998;Katila & Eriksson, 2013;Powell & Butterfield, 1981. Scholars have argued that the workplace climate continues to be dominated by the masculine discourse-an ideology that privileges masculine identity (Billing, 2011;Curtis, 2013;Eagly & Carli, 2007). This climate is evidenced by: sexual harassment; hidden discrimination in the form of devaluation; marginalization; exclusion from powerful social and professional networks; and lack of appreciation for greater family responsibilities for women (Hall & Sandler, 1982;Probert, 2005;Samble, 2008;Sheppard & Westphal, 1992). The masculine discourse drives behavior founded on deeply rooted assumptions about gender (stereotypes) embedded in the culture of our society and leading to differential behaviors toward men and women . Catalyst (2007) research found significant evidence for a continued "doublebind" for women in organizational leadership that is related to the masculine discourse. Because the norm is that men are seen as the default leaders and masculine behaviors are seen as leadership behaviors, when women enter leadership roles they are perceived as not competent and going against the norms of leadership. If women attempt to adopt more masculine ways of behaving and leading, they are perceived as going against the norms of femininity and stereotypes of women (Eagly & Carli, 2007). Other research highlighted the delicate balancing act that women in leadership roles need to perform to succeed (Haber-Curran, 2013). Women and men leaders are positioned differently; women are not seen as being natural leaders of people, where men are (Katila & Eriksson, 2013). Studies have found that stereotypical feminine traits (warm, kind) were not associated with success in leadership while stereotypical masculine traits (assertive, competent) were (Eagly & Karau, 2002;Heilman, 2001).
Research supporting the value of feminine and androgynous approaches to leadership by men and women (Kark, Waismel-Manor, & Shamir, 2012;Schein, 1973Schein, , 1975 has had little impact on behavior. Schools, like organizations, are vulnerable to perpetuating a masculine discourse and gendered climate. Schools, as cultural mediators, reproduce and affirm the norms and values of the dominant culture through language, curriculum, pedagogy and structure (Gutierrez & Rogoff, 2003;Kozulin, 1994). It is argued that, given this power, schools are "fundamentally tied to a struggle for a qualitatively better life for all through the construction of a society based on non-exploitative relations and social justice" (McLaren, 2003, pp. 70-71). Students bring existing stereotypes, identities and beliefs developed over years of exposure to attitudes to the classroom. Stalker and Prentice (1998) argue that "if they leave … unaltered, the university is not doing its job of encouraging students to consider the full range of avenues open to them" (p. 62). Unfortunately, educational institutions have been criticized for employing a hidden curriculum that seeks to reproduce existing oppressive systems of relations in society and indoctrinating the privileges of the dominant groups (Anyon, 1980).
In the classroom, gender bias is expressed as a series of micro-inequities with cumulative impact. Women (and their experiences) are excluded from the content of classroom discussions and qualities viewed as feminine are described as deficient (Banks, 1988;Iragaray, 1977;Martin, 1985). The exposure of girls to a positive women's history is rare (Martin, 1994;Sadker & Zittleman, 2009). "Gender stereotypes and the lack of women characters contribute negatively to children's development, limit their career aspirations, frame their attitudes about their future roles as parents, and even influence personality characteristics" (Sadker & Zittleman, 2009, p. 92). Education that emphasizes gender differences of students, belittles or elevates students based on gender stereotypes and reproduces hegemonic views of men and heterosexual superiority has contributed to gendered career choices and professional success, the wage gap, teenage pregnancy, school violence and bullying, depression, anorexia and low self-esteem (Sadker & Zittleman, 2009).
The mediators of women's experiences in higher education (faculty, pedagogy and curriculum) transfer the dominant narrative about what is of value, who matters, and how women should behave and participate (Sadker & Zittleman, 2009). In postsecondary education, women across men-dominated majors reported a chilly climate similar to that found in men-dominated industries (Morris & Daniel, 2007;Nixon, Meikle, & Borman, 2007). Science magazine recently highlighted the situation for women in STEM fields arguing that "most of us are biased" and called for increased interventions to change persistent gender stereotypes in STEM fields and education (Raymond, 2013). Students' gender-type attitudes toward occupations were reported in one study: students preferred gender-stereotyped occupations for themselves, gender-stereotyped occupations for men and non-stereotyped occupations for women (DiDonato & Strough, 2013).
Studies have demonstrated that business education (as compared to other educational programs) largely reproduced traditional gendered and classed understandings of identity and business success (Hall, 2013) and perpetuated preferences for the masculine managerial stereotypes and occupations (Fernandes & Carbral-Cardosa, 2003;Katila & Eriksson, 2013;Paris & Decker, 2012). Bryans (1999, 2004) found a distinct masculine bias in management education and a failure to incorporate women's experiences in business, rendering women invisible.
Another study faulted management education with failing to develop the "soft" skills considered feminine and in high demand in today's economy (Simpson, 2006). In another study, women MBA students reported feeling disconnected and disempowered, leading them to devise coping strategies such as denial of their experience, censoring and negatively self-stereotyping (Sinclair, 1995).
A national study of business school curricula (Herrington & Arnold, 2013) suggested that little in the content or approach has changed since the 1950s, prior to women's entry into professional corporate positions. Additionally, MBA students reported accepting the status quo of sexism as the way things are and actively asserted that gender did not matter (Kelan & Jones, 2010). Recent press has continued to highlight the persistent issue of gender discrimination and a chilly climate for women at business schools (Kantor, 2013;Mojtehedzaheh, 2014;Scott, 2014a).
While considerable progress has been made to reduce explicit gender discriminatory practices, critics argue that "second generation" discrimination is still very much a reality in traditionally masculine environments and fields (Hill et al., 2010;Mentkowski & Rogers, 2010;Miller & Sisk, 2012;Rabe-Hemp, 2008;Sturm, 2006). One study indicated that sexual harassment occurs frequently in academia in both athletic and academic settings and occurs more often for women and in academic relationships despite the belief that sports is a more gendered environment (Volkwein-Caplan, Schnell, Devlin, Mitchell, & Sutera, 2002).
The second-generation discrimination described above in the STEM and business/leadership literature has similarities with what the social justice literature has termed microaggressions (Sue, 2010).
Microaggressions are the brief and commonplace daily verbal, behavioral, and environmental indignities, whether intentional or unintentional, that communicate hostile, derogatory, or negative…gender…slights and insults to the target person or group. (p. 5) The constant experiences of micro-insults and micro-invalidation for marginalized groups have a myriad of consequences for the individual including lower self-esteem and feelings of worthiness, ultimately denying access and opportunity to education and employment (Basford, Offermann, & Behrend, 2013;Sue, 2010).
Microaggressions most relevant to women's experiences are delivered verbally, non-verbally and environmentally (Nadal, 2010;Sue, 2010;Sue & Capodilupo, 2008) and include: sexual objectification; ascription of intelligence and leadership ability to men-assumption of inferiority; relegation to second-class citizenship in organizations; devaluation of women's values and ways of communicating and interacting; sexist language and jokes; restrictive gender roles; denial of the existence of gender inequity or discounting the impact of gender on life success; and denial of individual sexism. Sue (2010) also outlines the process of microaggressions for the target. Once a microaggression occurs, the individual's perception and reaction are complicated and often thwarted, by the subtlety of the episode and the motivational attributions made about the agent. Women may check perceptions with other women to validate experiences or shift fault to the agent. However, they often rescue the offender by giving them a pass (Sue, 2010). Women's interpretation and meaning making of the microaggression may include developing beliefs that they do not belong, are abnormal, inferior or untrustworthy (Sue & Capodilupo, 2008). The possible consequences of this process on the individual include feelings of powerlessness, invisibility and mental/emotional exhaustion and the sense that in order to survive or succeed that they must comply or internalize the fundamental beliefs driving the microaggression (Sue, 2010).
One type of overt microaggression is referred to as a microassault and includes overt acts including harassment (Sue, 2010). Gender harassment has a universally negative impact for women, but may not be handled the same way as sexual harassment. Babaria et al (2012) found that women medical students became quickly acculturated and resigned to unprofessional gender harassing behavior and that the events quickly become part of their professional identity and accepted as just part of the job. Holland and Cortina (2013) found that women were more likely to identify sexual advances as sexual harassment and inappropriate, but less likely to see gender harassment the same way. Sue and Capodilupo's (2008) aforementioned findings about the impact of microaggressions (e.g. powerlessness, invisibility, exhaustion) may explain these findings.

Effects of Underrepresentation
In addition to the literature about the gendered climate of men-dominated fields and related gender microaggressions on women, there is significant literature on the effects the underrepresentation of women has on women including tokenism, lack of role models and limited access to social and organizational norms. Kanter (1977) theorized, that due to social group dynamics, when there is a low proportion of diverse members in a group, those diverse members become tokens and this instigates multiple phenomena and consequences. The phenomena include: polarization (exaggerated differences) leads dominants to heighten group boundaries; assimilation (token attributes are distorted to fit stereotypes) leads to token's role entrapment; and visibility (tokens capturing disproportionate awareness) generates disproportionate performance pressures for the token.
Even as women break into traditionally masculine environments, their minority numbers matter and have a direct impact on identity, advancement and perceptions.
So long as women are the minority in any organizational context, their behavior, attitudes and identity will be affected. Kanter's (1977) research suggested that the negative effects of tokenism would only begin to diminish when the proportion of the minority exceeded 35% of the group membership. Research has partially confirmed the importance of a critical mass in changing gendered organizational climates and structures (Chesterman, Ross-Smith, & Peters, 2005). In education, there is similar evidence of these phenomena. Decades of research has indicated that students in single-sex educational environments (particularly women) have less polarization of sex-type stereotypes, higher levels of achievement after graduation and are more likely to choose non-traditional majors and/or occupations (Harper, 2006;Mael, 1998).
Other research has confirmed the negative impact of continuing underrepresentation of women on firm performance and harassment charges in the organization (Bell, McLaughlin, & Sequiera, 2002) and suggested that it is unlikely that things will change until there are more women in leadership roles.
Studies of single-sex education models clearly show the importance of women role models and faculty in women student identity construction (Levine et al., 2013Cayea & Harrison, 2013Riebe, 2012;Ropers-Huilman & Enke, 2010) However, as illustrated earlier, women role models are scarce in leadership and men-dominated fields. The situation in post-secondary education is equally out of balance. Women make up only a small percentage of higher-level administration.
While the numbers are better than in the Fortune 500, only 26% of university presidents are women and much of higher administration is heavily men (Lapovkey, 2014). In addition, amongst those regularly interacting with students, fewer women rise to the level of Full Professor than do men-only 24% on average across all disciplines (Warner, 2014) and only 20% in Colleges of Business (Scott, 2014b). It is challenging, if not impossible for women students in men-dominated fields and women leaders to find women as role models.
In addition to a lack of role models, research has clearly shown that due to embedded gender stereotypes, many organizational practices are gendered and discriminatory toward women, including general attitudes, pay and promotion processes, and access to development opportunities (Barsh & Yee, 2011;Devillard et al., 2012;Germain et al., 2012;Johns, 2013). There is also evidence that women have less access to the experiences and social capital necessary to persist in masculine fields, assume leadership roles and develop leadership identities (Eagly & Carli, 2007;Simmons, 1996). Women are given fewer opportunities for training and advancement (Tharenou, Latimer, & Conroy, 1994) and may receive biased performance evaluations.  found that women's aspirations were more a product of manager's biased evaluations than of their abilities. Similarly, Jonnergård, Stafsudd and Elg (2010) found that performance evaluations for auditors were based on comparing women to the masculine norm and may explain lower career ambitions and expectation for women as well as a greater intention to leave. In fact, women are required to work harder for recognition (Muhr, 2011) and feminine traits lead to lower performance evaluations (Heilman & Welle, 2006). Due to these practices, women are given fewer opportunities to prove they have what it takes to be successful and have fewer opportunities for advancement.
Women without same sex role models and mentors may not learn the unwritten rules in organizations. Some women are unaware of the importance of factors beyond performance or time for career advancement such as visibility and relationship building (Catalyst, 2008). In fact, working hard (working long hours and achieving objectives) may not be enough. Lack of awareness of these "unwritten rules" and lack of access to informal networks through which to learn these norms may severely impede women's advancement (Catalyst, 2008(Catalyst, , 2010. Recent research has also suggested that women underestimate the role informal criteria play in hiring decisions (ability to sell yourself, knowing the right people) and therefore only apply for jobs for which they fit the formal requirements, while men apply for jobs they think they can get through informal methods (Mohr, 2014).

The Balancing Act of Work and Family
Within the context of the gender inequality described in the prior sections, women must also negotiate complex work and home responsibilities and roles.
Women report experiencing devaluation and delegitimization of their professional skills and contributions in the workplace (Barsh & Yee, 2011;Moya, 2002) due to a masculine construction of work, particularly once they start families (Cates, 2014).
The work-family literature has explored the affect on women and their careers of the "balancing act" between work and home and multiple role negotiation. Men's gender roles have evolved and men are taking on a greater role in the home. However, for the most part, traditional gender roles persist, requiring women to make difficult choices, negotiate tradeoffs and develop specific skills to balance multiple roles while remaining resilient to stress and challenges that arise in both domains (Barsh & Yee, 2011;Galinsky, Aumann, & Bond, 2011).
In the 1990s, Tharenou, Latimer and Conroy (1994) found evidence of a mommy tax--women with families had decreased chances for advancement. More recently  confirmed that family-work conflict bias (belief that women, whether or not they are married or have children, are less ambitious and capable than men) keeps men and women managers from hiring, providing accurate performance ratings for or promoting women. In parallel, Lobel and St.Clair (1992) found that perceived orientation toward family or career had an impact on merit increases for women. Career-oriented men received higher merit increases than both family-oriented men and family-or career-oriented women.
Women make career decisions based on their perceptions of work-life issues.
Liff and Ward (2001) described women's career decision making as being differentially impacted by the perceived incompatibility between active parenting and senior leadership roles. Women in one study were found to place greater importance on work life balance and cultural fit than men when considering jobs (Sallop & Kirby, 2007), which may lead women to opt out of career progression or at least give less time to building the networks necessary for advancement (Xu & Martin, 2011). Anderson, Vinnicombe and Singh (2010) found that women's choice to leave consulting partnerships was driven by the hours required of high level leaders and the anticipated impact of these requirements on the ability of women to balance work and life, rendering them, essentially, without a real choice. Similarly, Walsh (2012) found that high achieving women lawyers perceived their opportunities for promotion were relatively constrained due to the work-family culture at their firms. Bajdo (2001) found that organizational cultural practices related to gender equity were the most important predictor of the disproportionately low numbers of women in management and masculine fields.

Women's Responses to Gender Inequality and the Masculine Discourse
Women struggle to integrate the conflicting gendered identities required for leaders and for women. Sex-role identity has been directly linked to leadership aspirations in a number of studies, (Powell & Butterfield, 1981) as has gender (Litzky & Greenhaus, 2007) and self-held gender stereotypes (Gadassi & Gati, 2009). Ross- Smith and Chesterman (2009) coined the term "girl disease" to describe the ambivalence and reticence that their study participants reported about organizational advancement caused by the struggle to negotiate between gender and managerial identities. Participants who more strongly identified with the managerial domain reported higher aspirations (Ross-Smith & Chesterman, 2009). Women's reported expectations for gender equality were directly related to holding high level positions and not having a family (Ross-Smith & Chesterman, 2009). (2012) explored the experience of women in middle management and documented the pressure women feel for enacting masculinities at work in order to succeed. Kerfoot and Knights (1998) documented the increasing pressures on both men and women to adopt more masculine behavior and the privileging of masculine work culture. Alvesson (1998) had similar findings for men in advertising as did McDonald (2013) in nursing, where men reported pressures to adopt the more feminine behaviors privileged by those occupations. Bryans and Mavin (2003) found that women managers face multiple contradictions, whether to learn to fit in to the masculine paradigm of management or play a different game. In a study by Devine, Grummell and Lynch (2011) women reported having to develop what the authors called an "elastic self" to negotiate the demands of masculinist management cultures. Stead (2013) further described the processes women leaders use as they experience and strategically deploy (in)visibility to attempt to fit into masculine roles and discourses. Not so long ago, Fortune magazine even advised women to "Look like a lady, act like a man; work like a dog" (Fierman, 1990) in order to make it to the top.

Ross-Brannan and Priola
Women employees and students in men-dominated fields face similar challenges to women leaders and employ a host of coping strategies to respond. Hatmaker (2013) found that women engineers used impression management and coping tactics to negotiate the identity conflict between gender and professional identities. In a study by Erickson (2012), women Ph.D. engineers reported having to make difficult decisions about avoiding and revealing gender. Similarly, Power, Bagilhole and Dainty (2009) found that women in engineering performed gender to gain men's acceptance by using coping strategies: acting like one of the boys, accepting gender discrimination, achieving a reputation, seeing advantages over disadvantages, and adopting an "anti-woman" approach. Another study recommended that women seeking to enter traditionally masculine fields or positions describe themselves in interviews in agentic terms and avoid acknowledging their gender (Wessel, Hagiwara, Ryan, & Kermond, 2014).
As described earlier, stereotype threat is another powerful intrapersonal factor that limits women's success in men-dominated fields. Stereotype threat theory suggests that people's internalized stereotypes about themselves shape intellectual identity and performance (Steele, 1997). Studies on stereotype threat have found that students who are members of stereotyped minorities (i.e., women in business) expect to be stereotyped by others. These individuals are more stigma conscious and therefore less likely to seek opportunities to invalidate that stereotype. They will perform more poorly when the stigma is made salient. In fact, they will choose to avoid the situation altogether if possible (Kanter, 1977;Pinel, 1999). Sex role reinforcement puts pressures and constraints on behavior placed on those in minority status (e.g., women in finance, women in STEM). This leads to systematically distorted perceptions held by the dominant group (women are not good at math), selflimiting adaptive behavior by women and exit from the situation to a field with less pressure (Kanter, 1977). Ultimately, this results in the continued underrepresentation of women and other minorities in traditionally white men-dominated fields.
Additionally, in educational contexts, studies have shown that when students are made aware of negative stereotype expectations (e.g., women perform poorly on this math test) or simply reminded of their membership in a marginalized group, students fear proving the stereotype and subsequently perform more poorly on the test (Steele, 1997). In one study, social cues from the setting, including numbers of women participating and their roles, caused women to become more vulnerable to identity threat and experience a lower sense of belonging (Murphy, Steele, & Gross, 2007). It has been shown that stereotype lift (providing a positive stereotype awareness) can have the opposite effect (Johnson, Barnard-Brak, Saxon, & Johnson, 2012) when coupled with other interventions to reduce the aversive impact of the negative stereotype (Tomasetto & Appoloni, 2013), but this must be manufactured intentionally in men-dominated fields.
Research has illustrated significant differences in self-efficacy between men and women in men-dominated contexts. Women in these contexts may have decreased individual self-perceptions of skills and abilities and negative beliefs about the likelihood of successful performance (Bandura, 1977(Bandura, , 1986(Bandura, , 2001Wood & Bandura, 1989). High self-efficacy has been tied to likelihood of choice to pursue and persist on a task. Women traditionally have lower self-efficacy related to men-dominated domains and careers (typically masculine careers) than do men (Bandura, 2001;Eccles, 1994;Pajares & Schunk, 2001;Wilson et al., 2007). For instance, studies have shown that women have lower self-efficacy than men in areas related to math, finance, decision-making and problem-solving and other domains stereotypically defined as "male" (Bandura, 2001;Eccles, 1994;Pajares & Schunk, 2001;Wilson et al., 2007).
Women may be more likely than men to limit career aspirations and interests because they believe they lack the necessary capabilities to succeed. Therefore, women are more likely to choose careers with the greater perceived likelihood of success due to both internal and external factors (Bandura, 2001;Eccles, 1994;Pajares in general, appear to suffer from a crisis of confidence, leading them not to act on their ideas and subsequently hold themselves back from achievement. To further complicate matters, Pomerantz, Altermatt and Saxon (2002) found that despite outperforming boys across academic subjects, girls were more vulnerable than boys to internal distress. Girls evaluated themselves more negatively (except in traditionally feminine subjects), and experienced higher levels of anxiety and depression than boys.
This potentially led them to make major life choices about college major and career in order to minimize stress. Other research has suggested that women may view competitive situations differently than men (Pomerantz et al., 2002). Women are more likely to be socialized to please adults, may generalize failure beyond the specific situation, and worry about disappointing others should they perform poorly. In this study, the potential of failure appeared to be more salient for women than men and led them to avoid the situation altogether.
A study of gender differences in achievement-related beliefs and emotional responses to success and failure in mathematics courses found that women students rated their ability lower, expected to do less well, were more likely to attribute failure to low ability (Stipek & Gralinski, 1996). Women also were more likely to report believing that success was related to effort, had less pride in their success and exhibited a stronger desire to hide failures from others (Stipek & Gralinski, 1996). In a decade worth of research on mindset, Dweck (2006) found that the higher a woman's IQ, the worse she coped with confusion and frustration when learning a new task, to the point of being unable to learn the material after experiencing confusion or a challenge (e.g., calling their ability into question, undermining their confidence).
Viewing intellectual ability as a gift (fixed entity) led students to question that ability and lose motivation when faced with challenges in a particular area of study.
Alternately, students who viewed intellectual ability as a quality that could be developed and expanded through practice and dedication sought active remedies in the face of difficulty. Women students tend to believe that if they struggle, then they did not have the "gift" (Mangels et al., 2006). Katz, Allbritton, Aronis, Wilson and Soffa (2006) found support for the impact of mindset. Women who received a B or below in entry level computer science courses (major dominated by men) were more likely than men to change majors to a less man-dominated major. Yeager and Dweck (2012) posit that a growth mindset promotes resilience in the face of challenge. Growth mindset is the belief that intellectual abilities are not an innate gift and can be developed and taught. Fostering this mindset is crucial to increasing women's persistence in non-traditional majors. Yasuhara (2005) in a review of the gender gap in post-secondary education found consistent evidence that lack of self-confidence in women may be to blame for the gender gap in non-traditional majors. Women were more likely to have higher levels of self-doubt, leading to difficulty persevering through setbacks and making women students hesitant to seek out help. Women also reported being more dependent on external encouragement than men. Women felt worse about their achievement than men about similar course performance and blamed poor performance on lack of personal ability (Yasuhara, 2005). Beyer (1997) also found that women were more likely than men to blame poor academic performance on ability.

Impacts of Masculine Discourse on Women
As described above, exposure to discrimination and microaggressions has a cumulative impact on targets (Sue, 2010). Sadker and Sadker (2009) spent decades chronicling the impact of gender bias and oppression on women and men students in K-16 education. They found that "Women who have spent years learning the lessons of silence in elementary, secondary, and college classrooms have trouble regaining their voices" (Sadker & Zittleman, 2009, p. 10). In a gendered educational environment, boys fail to develop emotional and communication skills and girls fail to develop agency, tending instead toward passivity and voicelessness (Sadker & Zittleman, 2009). Recently, Hosaka (2013) found that women undergraduate engineering students in Japan were unwilling to ask professors questions unless they already had a very good understanding of the material and did not really need the help.
The undergraduate experience influences perceptions of work and family (Murray & Cutcher, 2012;Stone & McKee, 2000) and may narrow or magnify perceptions of gender differences as they relate to academic self-confidence and engagement, choice of undergraduate major and career aspirations (Curtis, 2013;Miller & Sisk, 2012;Paris & Decker, 2012;Sax & Arms, 2009;Sax & Bryant, 2006;Sax & Harper, 2007). One line of research has examined the role of undergraduate education as it relates to STEM alumnae aspirations and career persistence and found that sex atypical majors (women in traditionally masculine majors) and departments reinforced traditional sex role stereotypes and marginalizing interactions negatively influenced career identity construction for women (Fernandes & Carbral-Cardosa, 2003;Hatmaker, 2013;Katila & Eriksson, 2013).
Women often report feeling that they do not "fit in" in men-dominated fields and leadership (Probert, 2005). Women are opting out of career paths early in their educational careers due to their gendered beliefs about those fields (Baird, 2012;Good et al., 2012) and lack a "sense of belonging" in non-traditional fields (Denyszyn, 2013). Why So Few, the AAUW report on the continued underrepresentation of women in STEM fields, reviews the impact of sociocultural beliefs (versus biological/genetic explanations) as the basis for continued differences. The report specifically emphasizes the importance of the undergraduate experience in building atypical career self-confidence, self-efficacy and aspirations (Hill et al., 2010). Men and women are less likely to choose majors and career paths considered gendered atypical or "inappropriate," have very gendered views of future abilities to balance work and family (Murray & Cutcher, 2012), and are more likely to act on sexist beliefs (Gervais & Hoffman, 2012). Additionally, women's choices related to work, family and career are viewed as the cause of lack of gender diversity in masculinedominated fields (McClelland & Holland, 2014).
Studies suggest women's aspirations are tempered by the gendered context of some organizations, gendered social expectations and their own self-efficacy for leadership (Eisenhart & Finkel, 1998;van Vianen & Keizer, 1996). The persistent sex-role stereotypes reinforced in academic environments may lead to decreasing persistence of women in non-traditional majors. Subsequently, aspirations for and identification with atypical careers (via internalization of these stereotypes, lower assessment of cognitive skills, and lack of exposure to atypical examples) for women undergraduates may persist (Baird, 2012;Gadassi & Gati, 2009;Hill et al., 2010;G. Powell & Butterfield, 1979;Seymour & Hewitt, 1994;Siann & Callaghan, 2001;Soldner, Rowan-Kenyon, Inkelas, Garvey, & Robbins, 2012;Wyer, 2003). For example, Baird (2012) found that women high school students with traditional gender beliefs and lesser quantitative skills (considered masculine skill) are more likely to choose gender-typical career paths and majors. Even women with better quantitative skills, but traditional gender beliefs, were unlikely to choose atypical career paths (as are men with better verbal skills) (Baird, 2012).
The next section will review literature related to the content, process and efficacy of educational programs and interventions and program aimed at increasing women's representation and success in traditionally masculine fields including business leadership.

Interventions To Increase Women's Representation
The literature catalogues significant intervention efforts focused at increasing the representation of women in STEM and leadership. Intentional educational interventions aimed at decreasing gender stereotypes and employing a consciousness raising approach have been shown to change attitudes of students toward traditional sex role stereotypes (Bierema, 2010;Gervais & Hoffman, 2012). Educational interventions focused on dispelling negative gender stereotypes can have a positive impact on women students' performance and identification with sex atypical careers (Steele, 1997).
In an effort to improve STEM leadership self-efficacy in women undergraduates, researchers developed a semester-long intervention to build critical stereotype awareness, develop bias awareness, expose women to multiple counter-stereotypical women role models, participate in critical reflection and incorporate course concepts into lived experiences (Betz & Schifano, 2000;Isaac, Kaatz, Lee, & Carnes, 2012). The study provided compelling evidence of a long-lasting increase in leadership self-efficacy, empowerment of women students, and identification with STEM careers as a result of participation in the class. Other studies of similar interventions with women in business and other non-traditional careers provided equally positive results (Ely, Ibarra, & Kolb, 2011;Mentkowski & Rogers, 2010;Pool & Qualter, 2012).
Another intervention providing an increased number of positive atypical messages about women in STEM and highlighting women's contributions to the field resulted in an increase in positive identification with STEM fields and decreased concerns for stereotyping (Ramsey et al., 2013). It has also been suggested that incorporating positive representations of women scientists in fiction (science fiction text and film) into the curriculum challenges implicit gender bias and reduces sex role stereotyping (Merrick, 2012). These practices, while hopeful, are not commonly a part of the curriculum in most men-dominated disciplines and majors.
Other critical elements found in single-sex environments that could be intentionally created in co-education environments include exposure to women role models, women peer support for atypical aspirations, opportunity for academic achievement without social pressure, and abundant leadership opportunities (Mael, 1998). Similarly, women-only leadership development programs have shown promise in supporting women's advancement and persistence (Anderson, Vinnicombe, & Singh, 2008;Anderson et al., 2010;Ely et al., 2011;Vinnicombe, 2011;Vinnicombe & Singh, 2002). Exposure to women leaders and role models raises aspirations and sex atypical career identification for girls (Beaman et al., 2012;Ramsey et al., 2013), and providing women with a "space of their own" living-learning communities or discussion groups enhances their persistence and success in non-traditional fields (Riebe, 2012;Szelenyi, Denson, & Inkelas, 2012). Participation in a women-only leadership program showed evidence of maintaining self-esteem in the face of situations that would cause its decline (Henneberger, Deutsch, Lawrence, & Sovik-Johnston, 2012). Other research highlighted the key role of network development in supporting women in leadership roles (Parker & Welch, 2013;Xu & Martin, 2011).

Women's Gender Identity and Literacy Development
Women use multiple strategies in the face of the masculine discourse and to resist and manage positioning of their professional identities (Katila & Merilainen, 2002). These strategies are intricately related to psychosocial identity development.
While this study is not about women's gender or feminist identity development, I review the literature her because it serves as an important backdrop for my study of women alumnae. As a part of identity development, individuals must develop the ability to understand and adapt to new discourses. Blackburn (2002) defined literacy performances as patterns of behavior over time and across locations, locating action within sociocultural context and in identity. Each performance of a given identity strengthens and destabilizes that identity and any others in play undergoing constant revision and evolution-confirming and disrupting. Each series of performances of a given identity can reinforce or destabilize-evolve identitiesinteract in and with their contexts to conduct identity work (p. 313). This is the process of identity development that women go through when trying to succeed in dominant masculine environments. Hardiman and Jackson (1997) propose a model of social identity development to describe the common process that all members of target and agent groups go through as they develop social identities (gender, race, sexuality, etc.). All children start as naïve; they operate selfishly, purely from their own needs and curiosity as they interact with the world around them and attempt to figure out their own place in it. As they grow, children begin to learn and adopt ideologies and attitudes about their own and other social groups, recognize social rules, and question inconsistencies and contradictions.
Next, individuals begin to internalize the dominant discourse, status structure, rules and logic, and their place in it and either passively or actively depending on the relative consciousness with which they hold to the dominant discourse. So, for example, women as targets in passive acceptance are unaware of their collusion with the oppressive discourse, may assert their preference to work for men and their belief that women are not cut out for leadership roles. Women in active acceptance will argue against the need for feminism (for example: #womenagainstfeminism) and attempt to defend their stereotypical beliefs and attitudes about women. Women may describe their work experiences as gender-neutral, argue that gender does not matter or did not impact their own experience (Eisenhart & Finkel, 1998) in an attempt to reconcile the demands of gender and work identities and explain their willing participation.
Women's development is impacted by exposure to influential role models (for example: Sheryl Sandberg or a feminist professor) or an experience of blatant discrimination that could not be rationalized away. With increasing awareness of oppression, women may begin to question the "truths" of the dominant discourse. As targets, they may develop an oppositional stance (anti-men) or may take a more passive approach by adopting prototypically white man behavior (Eisenhart & Finkel, 1998) in hopes of maintaining status in the dominant discourse while philosophically rejecting oppression as acceptable (Bierema, 2010;Jacques & Radtke, 2012;Quinn & Radtke, 2006;Rosell & Hartman, 2001).
A redefinition of social group identity independent of the dominant culture and engagement comes with members of the their same social group who share the same experiences. They may be labeled troublemakers or rabble-rousers at this point by agent groups and other targets who have not themselves independently defined their social identity (Holland & Cortina, 2013). They often seek to learn as much as possible about their group, for example studying feminism or gender, and ultimately adopt this new identity. Finally, targets will enter Internalization and incorporate their new identity into all facets of their lives. Their newly expanded consciousness may lead them to further self-exploration and growth (see for example LeSavoy & Bergeron, 2011).
This model of development can be particularly helpful in understanding the role undergraduate education may have in facilitating feminist identity development for undergraduate women. It is similar to a model proposed by Downing & Roush (1984) focused specifically at the development of a feminist social identity, operationalized and validated by Bargad & Hyde (1991). This model seeks to describe the common processes that women go through as they develop a consciousness of women's oppression. The Downing and Roush model closely parallels the Social Identity Development model: passive acceptance, revelation, embededness-emanation, synthesis and active commitment. In one study, Mayhew & Fernandez (2007) found that colleges can create conditions to facilitate social justice outcomes and personal growth. And, in fact, The Association of American Colleges and Universities (aacu.org) calls for educational institutions to foster intellectual honesty and social justice and drive students to develop a deep understanding of one's own and other's complex identities and cultures. Women's identity development plays a significant role in their negotiation of masculine discourses.
Despite the reality of sexism, one study found that undergraduate students perceive gender discrimination as being of little consequence and believe that they will enter a gender-neutral workplace (Sipe, Johnson, & Fisher, 2009). Such beliefs lead to potential job dissatisfaction, decreased aspirations in the face of reality and turnover once these women enter the workforce. Building awareness of the realities of gender discrimination for undergraduates would have benefits for all stakeholders.
Based on Foucaldian foundations (1972), Gee (1996) defines Discourses as …saying (writing)-doing-being-valuing-believing combinations…ways of being in the world…that integrate works, acts, values, beliefs, attitudes, and social identities…a sort of identity kit which comes complete with the appropriate costume and instructions on how to act, talk…so as to take on a particular role that others will recognize. (p. 127). Lankshear (1991) suggested that some have the ability to see a discourse for what it is, critique it, and seek to change it; others simply live within it unaware. Blackburn (2002) suggests that literacy performances within multiple discourses empower individuals, facilitate their identity work and allow them to see the discourse for what it is. Identity and literacy performances are bound and regulated by the discourses (and inherent norms and values) in which they are defined and performed as well as the reactions, recognition and responses of those who witness the performance (Fellabaum, 2011). For women in undergraduate business education, their identity development is tempered by what has been described in prior sections as a chilly and gendered climate with norms and values oppressive for women.
As identity development models suggest (Downing & Roush, 1984;Hardiman & Jackson, 1997), it is a challenge for individuals to decipher the rules of new discourses, develop literacies, manage presenting conflicts between discourses and maintain desired identities in the face of negative reactions. Women seeking to enter the dominantly masculine discourse of business leadership must actively manage these challenges in order to succeed. Exposure to critical feminist paradigms has been shown to help women strengthen their gender identities and literacies, and manage challenges to those identities (Fisher, 2001;Rogers & Garrett, 2002).
The feminist practice of consciousness-raising is absolutely essential to women's education as it provides a structure for critical analysis by sharing experiences, reflecting on feelings, critically evaluating theories and envisioning actions for social change (Fisher, 2001;Rogers & Garrett, 2002). Lewis (1992) argues that these practices are crucial in the development of critical literacies and identities for women, providing them with an understanding of their figured worlds, positionality, space for authoring and facilitating the making of new worlds (Blackburn, 2002). Executive development research supports the value of consciousness-raising experiences. Feminist approaches enable women to locate themselves in the dominant discourse and to critically examine their position and actively author their identities (Fisher, 2001;Lewis, 1992).
It is essential for women entering gendered climates to develop knowledge and literacies in order to succeed. Hines and Johnson (2007) propose a specific taxonomy of critical literacies. Two of these literacies are particularly relevant to the current study: systems literacies (understanding how a discourse works-ability to read, interpret and criticize socio-historical-cultural structures) and resilience literacies (knowing what you believe, but also knowing when to fight and when to step back and regroup or redirect energy covertly until the spotlight is off). Research has found that women who are given opportunity to participate in consciousness raising practices may begin to develop these literacies through reflection and have the opportunity for voice and authoring of a new world view and positively impact professional confidence and persistence (Colbeck et al., 2001;Mentkowski & Rogers, 2010).
Women in undergraduate business who are exposed to the feminist paradigm may have a greater opportunity to develop critical literacies and face challenge with resilience and develop a more resilient social identity. Jaques and Radtke (2012) identified the tendency "of young women to privilege the ideal of women as wives and mothers, yet position[ing] themselves as autonomous individual making free choices and, thereby, responsible for managing the problems in their lives…ignor[ing] gender politics" (p. 433).
As discussed in prior sections, in business, women's professional development courses have historically sought to provide women with the skills to become leaders in the image of the dominant masculine discourse. In early work on leadership development, women were seen as a "special case," an anomaly (Wexley, 1986). For those women who did seek leadership roles, they received the same basic training as men. Any supplemental training offered was targeted to help them deal with their internal conflict between traditional sex roles (woman role vs. manager role) and facilitate responding to potential discrimination. While there was awareness of potential discrimination, there was no suggested training to reduce it or to empower women in dealing with it.
More recent research (Debebe, 2011;Edwards, Elliott, Iszatt-White, & Schedlitzki, 2013;Ely et al., 2011;Ibarra & Petriglieri, 2007) has suggested that leadership development for women should be designed to: • expose participants to masculine discourses or the " realities of the work world" for women; • develop skills aiding students to choose and attain a professional position after graduation and succeed in their careers and life; and • help students develop literacies and self-confidence to ultimately author their own figured world of business leadership.
Making all students aware of gender-based discrimination, bias and its impacts can provide them with literacies necessary to succeed in the face of discrimination and/or have the strength to confront it and ultimately change the reality of that discourse (Ossana et al., 1992). For women students, this literacy can provide them with an identity resilient to conflict, discrimination and stereotype threat and promote higher levels of self-esteem (Ossana et al., 1992). Other research has found that women who are given opportunity to participate in consciousness raising practices (awareness, reflection, discussion, challenge) may begin to develop literacies through reflection and the opportunity for voice and authoring of a new world view (Mentkowski & Rogers, 2010) that will help them more successfully navigate sex atypical career paths and balance conflicting ideologies.

Feminist Theoretical Framework
In this section, I review literature related to the feminist theoretical framework used in this project. Feminist paradigms place gender at the center of analysis, with a worldview that attends to systematic injustices related to gender (Lay & Daley, 2007) as a "primary organizing characteristic in our society" (Ropers-Huilman & Winters, 2011, p. 667). Feminist research problematizes the subordination and oppression of women. It explores how and where gender-based oppression began and how it is perpetuated (Acker, 1987). Downs (2010) provided a detailed account of gender history and the roots of the feminist movement using social history and literature to explore the development of the modern feminist and gender movements. Over the course of the Industrial Revolution, women and their lives became more visible as they left the private sphere of work at home and entered the public economy. As women entered these new public spaces of production in factories and in the service of the wealthy, their social positions, family structures and that of the society at large were changed irrevocably and revealed women as socio-historical actors and entered them into the variable pool for socio-economic study. The ensuing decades saw a public battle for women's rights resulting in an increase in women receiving educations, working outside of the home, and achieving voting rights. These public political rights were soon seen as not enough.
Second wave feminism revived feminist activism amidst the social, cultural and political movements in the late 1960s and resulted in feminism becoming a mainstream intellectual movement. Women, many now with university educations, made acutely aware of their powerlessness and second-class status by the social movements of the times, sought explanations and redress for male domination of their private and public lives. Not only were women questioning why their stories were not valued, they were refusing to accept gender role divisions as a natural state of the world. In parallel with the constructivist and post-modern paradigm shifts across academic scholarship, feminist researchers argued that gender was socially constructed and arbitrarily dichotomized, with the male gender arbitrarily established as the standard and the female gender occupying the place of "other" (Bem, 1993).
Feminist researchers further argued that androcentric ideologies and masculine narratives, not nature, determined which rights and privileges women and men should and could possess (Bem, 1993). This argument came directly out of lived experience and led to the call for an accounting of women's history that did not simply add women to the story, but questioned the very plot of the story itself and demanded a revision of social theory and social science foundations. Feminist standpoint theory (Hartsock, 1981) was one codification of this revisionist epistemology, borne in part of Marxism, proposing that knowledge and truth are situated, that there are multiple truths and standpoints from which knowledge is produced, and that experience creates reality. The theory further argued that the dominant group in society would define what is real, subsequently rejecting the validity of all other experiences (Hekman, 1997).
In the face of criticisms from women of color, academic post-feminists, and non-academic activists, third wave feminism continues the transformation of feminism. Third wave feminism centered on discussions of gender and the intersecting, multiple identities that form out of diverse social contexts and experiences (Ropers-Huilman & Winters, 2011) for both men and women in light of the progress made during the second wave movement and the historical circumstances shaping their lives. hooks (2000) and others (Downs, 2010), while espousing certain tenets of second wave feminism, vehemently criticized second wave feminism as essentializing and not descriptive for all women, particularly not women of color.
Third wave feminism has been fragmented by its demand for plurality, refusing to accept white mainstream feminism's failure to address or acknowledge other forms of oppression (racism, classism) (Orr, 1997;Pinterics, 2001). Some suggest that third wave feminism has moved from the personal to the individual and has shifted the emphasis to embracing complexities, ambiguities and multiple locations (Orr, 1997;Pinterics, 2001) in reflection of the lived experiences of contemporary women. As has been shown in this brief history, there are a number of feminist waves and perspectives. Each has its own challenges and critiques.

1.
Everything is culturally situated and constructed. Theory and knowledge are a political practice. What counts as knowledge or truth is power-related (Rogers & Garrett, 2002

3.
Difference is at the core of human experience. Men and women have different experiences. Feminist theory is launched from the researcher's own experience and focuses on women's lived experiences as a way to tell the "whole" story and give voice to the unheard, make the invisible, visible. What participants think is important, is important.
There is no one right answer. Seek and celebrate multiplicity and complexity in methods and disciplines, seek the extraordinary not the normal, seek to expand and describe not reduce and generalize

4.
The practice of research cannot be both descriptive and purely objective. Criticism of a paradigm must be continual, reflexive and come from within. Researcher and participant are empowered by the research outcomes, engaged in a relationship that affects the outcome (Bem, 1993;Harding, 1987;Hesse-Biber & Yaiser, 2004).

5.
Research should be focused on change, on action, not just on creating knowledge. It should both recognize difference and work to break down structures sustaining oppression. It should be accessible.
Feminism seeks to change the social realities for women and men by exploring their lives and shedding light on "normal" (hooks, 1994, 2000).
Three uses of feminist thought are of particular interest to higher education applications: as epistemology-a paradigm or lens through which to explain or critique a particular social/cultural event or phenomenon; as a methodology to guide exploration and description of that phenomena and choices about what to look at and how to look at it; and finally as a pedagogy (Fisher, 2001;Noddings, 2006). In this study, I approach this topic with consideration for the first two. First, I am approaching this exploration of undergraduate business alumnae using a feminist lens.
Second, I am incorporating elements of feminist methodology into my study, as I will discuss further in the next chapter. These foundational tenets of feminism shaped every aspect of my dissertation process.
The goal of this study was to explore the experiences of alumnae of undergraduate business education. To achieve this, the study employed narrative inquiry and analysis guided by two research questions: 1. How, if at all, do business school alumnae make meaning of the gendered climate of the business profession?
2. What role, if any, do alumnae believe their college experiences played in shaping their understanding of, preparation for, and aspirations in the traditionally masculine professional world of work?
In this chapter, I review the narrative and feminist methodology used for this dissertation. I also describe the setting of the study as well as the procedures used for sampling, narrative collection, and narrative analysis. Finally I provide support for the trustworthiness of the study and explore the limitations of this study and the methodology.
Critics of management and business education (primarily at the graduate level) have long argued for the need for change in faculty gender composition, curriculum and pedagogy to address the reported gender bias that shapes the business school experience (Mavin & Bryans, 1999;Mavin et al., 2004;Miller & Sisk, 2012;Simpson, 2006;Smith, 1997Smith, , 1998Smith, , 2000, but little change has been achieved. Most empirical work done recently is largely from a positivistic framework (Crawford & Mills, 2011;Davis & Geyfman, 2012;Hunt & Song, 2013) and little is understood about the rich and complex reality of how the business school experience shapes women's identities, aspirations and capacities for achieving their career and life goals. This qualitative dissertation using narrative inquiry, informed by feminist methodology to delve deeply into the rich and complex experiences of undergraduate business alumnae, begins to address this gap.

Methodological Theory
The choice of method should be informed by the ontological, epistemological and axiological assumptions guiding the study. The study employed a qualitative methodology to counter existing positivistic business education research and provide a rich, feminist, critical voice to women business alumnae and their experiences.
Quantitative research continues to be given preference in business disciplines (Crawford & Mills, 2011;Davis & Geyfman, 2012;Hunt & Song, 2013) despite an increasing recognition of the importance of more fully understanding human behavior and the drawbacks of quantitative research for exploring the human experience.
Narrative inquiry, the qualitative approach that was employed in this study, emphasizes the complexity, multiplicity, richness and meaning of a person's everyday life (Denzin & Lincoln, 1998a, 1998bStake, 2010;Yin, 2011). This emphasis is greatly needed to balance and inform business education research.

Narrative Inquiry and Feminist Methods
The "narrative" has been a subject of, and method for, analysis since Artistotle's study of Greek tragedy (Riessman, 2008). The study of narrative developed out of the examination of literary works, with the identification of classic story structures and elements (Bruner, 1991;Clandinin, 2013;Riessman, 2008). Since then, it has been suggested that many forms of text could be viewed through a narrative lens as representations of experience, bounded by a criterion of contingent sequences linking events and ideas (Bruner, 1991;Clandinin, 2013;Riessman, 2008).
Narratives structure experience, create order, and construct meaning. Narrative inquiry is a continuum-a family of methods for interpreting storied texts (Riessman, 2008).
Approaches range from examining text at the micro level, as discrete units of discourse (i.e., the word, the utterance) to examining complete life stories as a whole (i.e., rape survivor, baby boomer). Narrative inquiry is often used in social science as a method for conducting case-based research-the cases being the individual or the group of interest. The stories of the study participants accumulate to form a fuller picture of their experiences (Riessman, 2008).
Narrative inquiry finds it roots in symbolic interaction, Deweyian philosophy, and literary criticism. The emergence of narrative inquiry in social science research can be traced back to Chicago School of Sociology and the epistemological shift from realism toward symbolic interaction in the early to mid twentieth century (Riessman, 2008). Symbolic interactionists "assume that individuals' experiences are mediated by their own interpretations of experience…humans act toward things on the basis of the meanings those objects have for them…meanings arise through social interaction with others" (Jacob, 1987, p. 27). Dewey's (1938) theory of experience, shaped by symbolic interaction, is at the foundation of modern narrative inquiry (Clandinin, 2013). Dewey's two criteria of experience-interaction and continuity-provide a basis for narrative inquiry through the dimensions of temporality, place and sociality.
Narrative inquiry, guided by Deweyian pragmatism, recognizes that representation of reality, independent of the knower, is impossible and should not be the goal in social research. Instead, the inquiry itself is action-oriented in collaboratively helping the knower shape and reshape the experience (Clandinin, 2013). It is a relational, continuous and social approach to the study of human lives while simultaneously honoring lived experience as a source of knowledge and understanding (Clandinin, 2013). Narrative inquirers situate themselves in direct relation to their participants, with no pretense of positivistic views of objectivism. The process of gathering the narrative is honored as part of the process, method and narrative itself.
Narrative inquiry can refer to either the practice of storytelling or a methodology for finding, collecting and analyzing these stories (Clandinin, 2013;Riessman, 2008). Clandinin (2013) defines a particular ontological and epistemological approach to narrative inquiry, studying an individual's experience in the world as well as the nature of the social, cultural and institutional narratives continuously interacting with those experiences, shaping and reshaping them.
"Narrative inquiry is a way of understanding and inquiring into experience…situated in relationships and in community and it attends to notions of expertise and knowing in relational and participatory ways" (Clandinin, 2013, p. 13). It is a co-relational process, between researcher and participant, where stories are told and retold and the stories and people are changed in the process, unpacking and repacking lived experience.
Experience-centered narrative research defines personal narratives as different from other sets of symbols because they involve movement, succession, progress or sequence-usually, temporal sequences-and the articulation or development of meaning. (Andrews, Squire, & Tamboukou, 2013, pp. 1297-1298 Narrative inquiry revolves around living, telling, retelling and reliving of stories (Clandinin, 2013). Narrative inquiry has the potential to encourage the sharing of both the satisfying confirmatory stories that allow positive self-representation relative to the master discourse and the less satisfying disequillibriating stories allowing growth and the ability to see oneself outside the dominant ideology (Merriam, 2002). Narrative inquiry explores how people position themselves relative to a discourse and illuminates their changing responses to different situations.
Narrative analysis acknowledges both the immediate social context (the interview) and the broader, conflicting ideological context (life). When narrating past events, speakers attempt to negotiate ideological tensions and make identity claims (Daiute & Lightfoot, 2004;Gee, 1996Gee, , 2000. "Narrative inquiry is a way of understanding and inquiring into experience through collaboration between researcher and participants, over time, in a place or a series of places and in social interaction with milieus" (Clandinin, 2013, p. 38).
This study explores narratives of the past and present and the interaction of these stories. Clandinin (2013) argues that the use of narrative inquiry must be personally, practically, and socially justified. This study satisfies her requirements.
Personally, I have a vested interest in the inquiry. As described in the introduction, I For all of these reasons, narrative inquiry provides the best model for exploring the "stories" business alumnae have about their undergraduate experiences and transitions to work. Narrative inquiry and feminist methodologies embrace many of the same assumptions: lived experience as central, multiple, dynamic ways of knowing; reflexivity of researcher and participant; recognition of the impact of social dynamics on the research process; and focus on expansion not reduction (Belenky, Clinchy, & Tarule, 1997Harding, 1987;Hesse-Biber & Yaiser, 2004). A feminist perspective focuses attention on the power and identity struggles within an oppressive system privileging a masculine master narrative (Creswell, (Merriam, 2002). A qualitative narrative study has the power to contribute significant insights into the experience of an oppressed group (women) in the dominant discourse (masculine business) (Merriam, 2002;Yin, 2011). The tradition of story-telling as consciousness-raising has a long history in the feminist perspective (Downs, 2010;Fisher, 2001) founded on exploring non-unitary subjectivity, shifting identity positioning and working on the borders of multiple discourses (Yin, 2011). Acker (1987) summarized feminist theoretical frameworks as questioning women's subordination to men, its history, its process and examining how it might be changed. Bem (1993) followed with a similar proposition. Feminist frameworks seek to both understand gender inequality and provide an action plan for change. This approach recognizes the existence of structures defined by the dominant hegemonic narrative and oppression as part of the way the world is organized (Ropers-Huilman & Winters, 2011). Because Narrative Inquiry is in direct alignment with a feminist perspective, it will provide the opportunity to document stories from a group that has until now been rendered silent by the prevailing positivistic approaches to research privileged in the discipline.

Research Questions
This study explored the lived experiences of business school alumnae and studied how their experience in college informed their navigation of the transition from college to the work world and subsequent career moves. Research questions included: 1. How, if at all, do business school alumnae make meaning of the gendered climate of the business profession?
2. What role, if any, do alumnae believe their college experiences played in shaping their understanding of, preparation for, and aspirations in the traditionally masculine professional world of work?

Setting
The setting for this study was a college of business (COB) at a rural state university in the Northeast United States. The University is located forty-five miles from an urban center and offers more than 80 majors across eight colleges.  The COB curriculum is very structured and quantitatively focused. In addition to general education requirements, all business majors take a common lower core of courses worth 18 credits. For all but the general business major, liberal (outside the college) and professional (inside the college) electives are limited or not possible.
When the study participants were at the COB, there was no career management course requirement and one designated career services advisor-this has since changed. See APPENDIX A for a full curriculum listing of core courses. Diversity is a key curriculum expectation for accreditation (http://www.aacsb.edu/en/accreditation/standards/). According to the course descriptions, two COB required courses directly address issues of diversity but no specific courses are designed as social justice courses, nor do any course descriptions, as listed in the catalog, focus on gender inequality or feminism.

Sampling Procedures
Once I received IRB approval, I contacted the Alumni Office at the University and requested an email list for alumnae who graduated with a business major between 2006 and 2011. The list they provided had 420 undergraduate alumnae with email addresses. I sent an email to this list (Appendix B) that asked for their participation in the study and directed them to contact me for initial screening and explanation of the study if they were interested in participating. Nineteen women responded to the email.
By email, I confirmed their interest and directed them to a confidential online questionnaire (Appendix C) to capture key demographics and to determine if they met the sample criteria described in the next paragraph.
Sampling for experience-centered narrative research is aimed at developing a full and rich description of a particular experience and collecting a diverse collection of narratives about that experience (Andrews et al., 2013). The process is less about sampling people and more about sampling stories. With this in mind, I selected my sample of ten alumnae purposefully (Creswell, 2013) to maximize variability in experiences across the context, while acknowledging and maintaining that context (Daiute, 2014 Three of the ten participants in the final sample had me as an instructor for one or more classes. I carefully considered my role as a faculty member in the COB while analyzing transcripts. I intentionally reflected on the possible impact of my interaction with the alumnae during interviews and how that might contribute to the narrative produced. I also considered the possible effects of the feminist/social justice pedagogy I employ in class on the experiences of those students who took my classes.
See Table 2

Collection of Narratives
As opposed to traditional social science interviewing techniques, narrative collection acknowledges, accounts for, and even requires two-way interaction between interviewer and participant (Mishler, 1986). Both interviewer and participants are partner participants, telling, retelling, and reliving the experiences being narrated (Clandinin, 2013). To encourage this two-way conversational model, I developed a semi-structured interview protocol (Appendix E) informed by the literature and my professional experiences. Both my committee and critical friends reviewed the protocol to ensure that the questions were not leading or structured to force answers within my preconceived expectations (Clandinin, 2013). Based on feedback, the first draft of questions was modified.
I planned to conduct two interviews with each participant. The first interview would cover their experiences while at the COB; the second would focus on their professional experiences since graduation. I also planned to begin my analysis after the first round of interviews, share the preliminary themes with participants and then use their feedback to inform and focus the second interview. This process would allow me to more actively include the participants in the process of creating the narrative and applying meaning to their experiences. However, the procedure was slightly modified to reflect the needs and schedules of study participants as discussed below.
Once my sample was finalized, I contacted each volunteer by email or phone to schedule the first in-person, in-depth, semi-structured interview. I arranged to meet participants at times and locations of their choice near their work or home, in coffee shops or restaurants. These interviews took place over a period of three months during summer. Interviews were digitally recorded with participant permission. Each interview took between 60 and 120 minutes. During the interviews, I made note of specific words and phrases that stood out to me and my most used follow-up questions were: "Can you give me an example of that?" "Tell me more about that…" and "Can you tell me about a time when that happened?" My main focus was to engage in a conversation with my participants and listen to what they said and what they did not say (Mishler, 1986). The interview recordings were professionally transcribed.
Narrative inquiry is an iterative process, weaving collection/co-creation and analysis during, between and after interviews (Clandinin, 2013). Immediately after each interview, I reflected on the conversation, captured my thoughts about both the content and the process in a personal journal and made slight changes to my protocol to improve the flow of the conversation. During this process, I also began to analyze and interpret the transcripts and my field notes.
After the first two participant interviews, I realized that my initial plan to ask about college experiences in a first interview and post-college experiences in a second interview was not realistic. hooks (2000) posits that people's lived lives are not linear.
Similarly, Clandinin (2013) argued that in narrative space, events do not follow a chronological sequence and represent simultaneously where the person is now, has been and will be. The first two participant interviews naturally covered all of the study topics in a non-linear way. I realized that the division I had planned was an artificial one. So, I removed it for the eight remaining interviews. During interviews with participants 3-10, I asked about both college and post-college experiences and planned to use subsequent interactions to follow up with clarifying questions to explore the experiences in greater depth.
Once I had completed the first round of interviews with all participants, I spent time reading and listening to the transcripts and also revisited my field notes about each interview. From this review, I drafted interim research texts, seeking coherence and contradiction across themes and experiences (Clandinin, 2013).
We must, in the composing, co-composing, and negotiation of interim and final research texts, make visible the multiplicity, as well as the narrative coherence and lack of narrative coherence, of our lives, the lives of participants, and the lives we co-compose in the midst of our narrative inquiries. (Clandinin, 2013, p.49) To improve validity of my findings and reduce personal bias, I invited my two critical friends (peer Ph.D. students approved by IRB) to review three random transcripts and my draft interim research texts. I asked them to read the transcripts for key themes, contradictions and questions and asked if they would add anything to my preliminary analysis. The friends provided some valuable feedback on phrasing of themes and clarity of meaning but were in general agreement about the themes and follow-up questions I proposed.
In early fall, several weeks after the completing the first round of interviews, I provided participants with evolving themes and findings drafted as interim research texts (Clandinin, 2013) via email (Appendix F). I asked them to provide feedback on my themes and share additional reflections, stories, clarifications, questions and revisions. I did this to allow opportunities to co-interpret and negotiate the multiplicity of meaning as a form of member-checking and to ensure that I was not dissembling participant experiences (Clandinin, 2013).
Based on input from the participants during the first interviews about the difficulty of finding time to physically meet, I offered them the choice to hold the second interview either electronically or in person. In the email, I also asked a number of follow-up questions developed from my preliminary analysis. I formulated these questions to seek a better understanding of specific things individual participants had said and to test agreement across the participants on certain themes. Specifically, I asked questions about work experiences while in college and the role of advice and role models in their experience. Both of these topics were inconsistently discussed during the first round of interviews.
All ten participants requested that the second interview be conducted via email in lieu of an in person interview due to the very busy nature of their professional and personal lives. Self-authored narrative as field texts are a well supported model of narrative inquiry and provide an alternative view of the experience and well as an alternative method for participants to tell their story (Andrews et al., 2013;Clandinin, 2013;Riessman, 2008). Research has shown that the written text-based environment of online discussion boards may support and promote individual self-reflection, learning and identity development (Sutherland, Howard, & Markauskaite, 2010).
In their e-mails, participants provided additional stories about their experiences at COB and general thoughts about women in business that had occurred to them since our first interview. They also used written word to more fully emphasize elements of their experience and provided comments on how the interview experience affected them. Some of the emails were several pages long, some shorter and more direct.
Many of their email responses were different in tone from the face-to-face interview.
Some participants who had been reticent and unsure of their opinions during the first interview were more expansive and responsive in their email responses. This is consistent with research on the benefits of written discourse (Sutherland et al., 2010).

Analysis of Narratives
Narrative analysis interrogates what the story tells as well as, how and why the story is told the way it is-it reads both the lines and in between the lines (Riessman, 2008 and suggests that they can be used together or separately depending on the nature of the narrative. For this study, due to the nature of the participants' narratives, I used the thematic lens. For the thematic lens, data analysis and interpretation is similar to the process outlined in Creswell (2013) and Miles and Huberman (1994) including coding for themes and descriptions and identifying interrelated themes. Data analysis also includes interpreting meaning and exploring points of tension or disequilibrium with specific attention to the cultural context. Thematic analysis reveals "the ideological, motivational, idiosyncratic meanings which individuals and groups attach to words, relationships, symbols and institutions" (Daiute & Lightfoot, 2004, p.225) and results in a codified set of categories generated inductively. Themes can then be compared to existing theories and literature.
Time spent immersed in the data led me to focus on an analytical approach exploring themes. I decided not to focus on dialogic/identity performances or narrative structures to the level of critical discourse analysts, pragmatics or linguistics (Cameron, 2001;Carspecken & Cordeiro, 1995;Gee, 2011;Gee & Green, 1998). I made a conscious effort to honor the local context of narrative production, but, after several readings, felt thematic lens would provide a richer understanding of the women's experiences.
For the thematic lens, I used the data analysis and interpretation process outlined in Creswell (2013), Miles & Huberman (1994) and Reissman (2008) including coding for themes and descriptions, naming and grouping themes, identifying interrelated themes and interpreting meaning and particularly points of tension or disequilibrium. I compared themes across cases and with existing theories and accounts of women's experiences in business education and the corporate workplace for commonalities and differences. This resulted in a codified set of categories generated inductively bringing prior theory to bear on the cases (Riessman, 2008) but still firmly rooted in the participant narratives. I organized the resulting themes temporally to illustrate reflections on experiences during college and experiences after college. During college themes were: gender matters?; faculty and coursework influence; COB as a "bubble" (Dawn); perceived rules of the game; and I can have it all. After college themes were: "it's really not equal" (Ivy); the real rules of the game; and can't have it all. These will be described in detail in the next chapter.
In sum, Riessman (2008) suggested that "narrative analysts interrogate intention and language-how and why incidents are storied" (p. 11) and reflect the narrator's reality and priorities at a point in time. I used a thematic narrative analysis approach to ensure that I achieved this goal, illuminating and identifying common and uncommon themes of experience.

Trustworthiness
In qualitative research, validity and reliability are approached differently than in more positivistic approaches. Scholars of qualitative methodology have recommended that attempting to apply positivistic language (validity, reliability) and verification methods to qualitative approaches is incongruous (Creswell, 2013). Lincoln and Guba (1985)  Rich and thick descriptions. Narrative analysis is based, first, on the creation of narrative. In an effort to provide thick descriptions, I collected data through multiple methods to constitute field texts (Clandinin, 2013). During my analysis, I intentionally sampled stories across space, time, and themes (Daiute, 2014) to further approach narrative saturation.
I also kept a personal journal as a field text so that I could provide transparent documentation and description of my procedures and evolving perceptions and develop a reflexive, methodic process (Yin, 2011). In the journal, I captured my experiences, both autobiographical and in the context of the study, ideas, fears, mistakes, confusions, problems and concerns with the study. This practice was intended to facilitate maintaining the recursive (Yin, 2011) and interactive, continual design, collection and analysis of narrative. The journal facilitated honoring the way each story informs future and past stories, taken as a whole and individually.
Triangulation of data. I analyzed multiple sources of data including: transcripts of 10 in-depth, semi-structured face to face interviews; emails from participants, electronic responses to inquiries, and spontaneous messages about the study topics; descriptive statistics and curriculum data about the COB context; and my journaled memos about the study and interview process. Negative case analysis. I viewed each individual narrative as a case, isolating and ordering relevant episodes temporally or spatially, zooming in to identify underlying assumptions and processes and naming and selecting particular cases to demonstrate patterns or contradictions (Clandinin, 2013;Riessman, 2008). I actively sought negative cases and note these in the next chapter. Two participants did respond about two themes that they did not feel represented their experience, but agreed that other women at the school likely had had those experiences. In the findings chapter, I note these negative cases (Creswell, 2010). I also invited participants to provide additional information about the themes and to answer follow-up questions seeking clarification and further detail about certain themes and ideas.
I believe my findings are a trustworthy and credible representation of my participants lived experiences and perceptions. From a postmodern, interpretive framework for evaluating qualitative research (Creswell, 2013), I also believe that I am making a substantive contribution to our understanding of society, giving voice to a marginalized population and thus promoting social justice.
Ultimately, my analysis sought to actively acknowledge the lived context of the participants and its impact on their perceptions. The resulting narrative portrays identities as ways of making sense of experience, defining and reshaping values, commitments and ultimately futures (Mohanty, 1993;Moya, 2002), and attempts to expose the challenges women face in the masculine discourse of undergraduate business education and work.

Limitations
The focus of the interviews and electronic communication focused on the participants' subjective experience. A brief demographic questionnaire was used to capture information about age, race, sex, degree(s) attained, employer(s) and marital and parental status. This information was self-reported and was not verified through the University's academic record system or any other external information source.
In hindsight, I would improve the phrasing I used in questions and ask additional questions, including more pointed follow-up questions. My phrasing and probes over the course of the interviews did improve as I learned from mistakes, and was able to follow up during the online interview, but it was not fully evident where I had left questions unasked or information incomplete until I had completed analysis. succeed. The fourth theme revolves around the perceived "rules of the game" that participants believed would apply to them once they joined the workforce after graduation; career and employment success was based on merit. Finally, the fifth theme summarizes the aspirations participants had during college and at graduation.
After college themes were: 1) "it's really not equal" (Ivy); 2) the real rules of the game; and 3) can't have it all. The themes after college reflect most participants' changed perceptions of the real world of work since leaving COB and subsequent tempered aspirations. The first theme revolves around the perceptions of the broad impact gender has had on work experiences ("it's really not equal" (Ivy)). In the second theme, participants also report new understandings of the "real" rules of the game for women to succeed as leaders: be friendly and act like a man; and "career success equals sacrifices" (Faith). The third theme titled can't have it all, reflects how some participants have become discouraged by what they see women leaders experiencing, their treatment in the workplace and subsequently how these have led to their own refined career and life aspirations.

The Context
In analyzing participant reflections on their experiences during college, it was clear they all enjoyed their undergraduate experiences. While the next paragraphs are not emergent themes, they are meant to offer a context to the women's narratives about college. Narrative is rooted in context and must examine an individual's experience in the world as well as the nature of the social, cultural and institutional narratives shaping those experiences (Clandinin, 2013

Gender Matters?
The first during-college theme was titled "gender matters?." There is a gender gap in enrollment at the COB and employment of faculty as described in earlier chapters. While most participants reported being aware of the gap, some struggled to express the impact of the gap on their experience and had varying perceptions (hence, the question mark in the theme title). Three participants, two of whom had me as an instructor (Cece and Dawn), shared the most negative perceptions of the gender gap and experiences of gender-related treatment by peers and faculty. This is possibly due in part to their greater comfort in talking to me, or their desire to please me, but could also be due to the fact that in my classes gender was discussed at length. All in all, gender mattered for some, while others perceived it did not matter at all.
In reflecting on their perceptions of the student body at the COB, nearly all of the women recognized that the COB had a higher percentage of men than women students and faculty: I noticed there happened to be significantly more men in the COB but I didn't feel at a disadvantage in any way. I didn't go into class thinking, like, "Oh, man, I'm one of a handful of women." I was never the only girl in class, but I definitely was on the minority. (Ivy) Ivy went on to clarify, I loved my college classes, and I loved being in groups with the-I mean mostly with the guys, and I'm still friends with a bunch of 'em now, but it was definitely, you know, harder sometimes, being a woman.
Bess was more specific about her perceptions and said, "Women were the minority, and there was never a class that focused on gender at all." Joy was equally direct, "I think that's a lot of men. It is a lot of men." Dawn reflected, "Looking back at like who my classmates were, you don't realize-especially those accounting and finance classes. You're surrounded by guys. They-there's a lot of m-male dominance [laughter] in those classes." During the first interviews, most of the women were reticent to describe the gender gap in negative terms and generally did not recall feeling disadvantaged.
However, some women did share a number of experiences with peers that could be classified as microaggressions (Sue, 2010) including some frustration over a lack of respect in team activities. Dawn shared, "And that was frustrating, like being a female. What was tough in that school, looking back, was that I think when you're put on those group projects, you weren't always respected." Others described being asked to take administrative roles which resembles Sue's microaggression of second-class So I just feel like-I feel like sometimes, and I also feel like some of the professors that were also male also expected more.
These gendered beliefs were closely related to participants' beliefs about majors, fields of study and industries as being better suited to women or men. Sex-role stereotypes reinforced in academic settings impact persistence of women in nontraditional majors and affect their beliefs about the value of women's contributions.
Faith shared, "I do feel sometimes marketing is the 'easy way out' in business vs.
'real' business." She then reflected by email a short time later, I don't know why the COB just negated it [marketing], because the funny thing is most of them are women…the classes and spaces felt predominantly female and yes I had a bias of "what male wants to go into marketing, seems girlie" I won't lie, that was a thought. Marketing takes a different mindset of openness and creativity and I felt this was female driven.
Beliefs about the value of certain fields and how these beliefs shaped participants' aspirations will be discussed in a later section of this chapter. Overall, the reflections of the participants show a significant amount of ambivalence about the impact of gender on their COB experience. They also reveal evidence of microaggressions. As is often the case in narrative inquiry, participant perceptions shifted throughout the interview process and the participants increasingly questioned the impact of gender as they considered the question. They wrestled with whether gender mattered, or not.

Faculty and Course Work Influence
Faculty feedback, including support or a perceived lack of support had a tremendous impact on participants and their feelings of belonging to a major or discipline and clearly strengthened or changed career aspirations. Ada shared, "It wasn't necessarily so much the classes that I enjoyed. I mean, they're accounting classes, like, they're not the most exciting things. It was more the professors." Faculty reportedly communicated a fixed mindset (Dweck, 2006) to the participants, privileging natural talent for a field or ability. Participants perceived the faculty as being the authority so they adjusted their aspirations according to whether or not they perceived that they had a natural talent. Ada provided a poignant example, I had one tax professor, the one tax professor that I did not like one time tell Students clearly viewed faculty as experts in their fields and take to heart faculty assessments of student skill and potential. Even off-hand comments have impact: both to strengthen, weaken, or even destroy, aspirations. The participant comments reflect internalization of the beliefs heard from faculty about a fixed (versus growth) philosophy, an assumption of inferiority (microaggression, Sue, 2010) and showed that the women were relatively quick to withdraw from situations of potential failure.

COB as a Bubble
Participants unanimously described COB (and undergraduate education in general) as being based on theory only and presenting an ideal worldview, not exposing students to the reality of business and the world of work. Dawn described how she felt when she entered the workforce, "It's a culture shock. You've lived in this little bubble for four years. Um, I think you need that experience and that exposure outside of the university bubble." Faculty with no industry experience, textbook based curricula, non-experiential pedagogy, and little exposure to diversity and the soft skills essential to business were all issues cited by participants as contributing to the "bubble." Bess expressed, "I don't think I was prepared at all. It's hard when you only-when you come from all theory and no practice." First, participants perceived that faculty without work experience were not as effective as those who had worked in industry prior to academia. When asked about internships as experiential education, some students felt these were helpful experiences to add to their resumes, but didn't feel they were "100% accurate depiction of how real life working would be" (Bess). Conversely, Grace expressed that internships that exposed them to women role models helped define and strengthen aspirations and identities: [My internship coordinator] was totally in charge and ran a tight ship -she had high expectations for quality and things were always very black and white to her, and was obsessed with being in shape and dressed well. She was very much in charge and could see right through nonsense. I had never really met someone like her before. It really solidified my choice to go into accounting, and also made me feel better about being considered "intense" by my family-

because [my internship coordinator] was way more intense than me.
Other participants recalled that the COB curriculum did not focus on people or "soft" skills like communication or conflict management, which they found to be the most important upon entering the workforce. None recalled talking about specific business leaders in class or introducing women role models. Grace pointed out, There is so much that goes into being successful. You have to understand accounting and be able to apply knowledge well enough to get by, but there are a lot more intangibles that make people successful. Such as being able to work well with a huge variety of people, be somewhat independent and a problem solver, taking initiative, etc. I think in college you learn a lot of technical skills, but you don't necessarily learn soft skills-at least not in the classroom. tons of women, and they promote women, which is very-the ratio of women to men managers are probably equal. I mean we have so many women managers, which is uncommon, but I think a company like this is ideally what they hope that is out there for everybody as well.
Hope shared a similar perception, "I don't think that I ever felt like University was catering to women necessarily in any way or, like, helpful, I guess, in pointing out, I guess, the obstacles in the business world and stuff for a woman." Several of the participants did not recall ever discussing gender-based workplace challenges. Those that did perceived the challenges to be mostly outdated, irrelevant or not applicable to them personally. For example, Ella shared, I remember specifically her one time mentioning, um, when she was with [company] there was a golf outing that she went to and they didn't let her on the golf course because she wasn't a man. And I can't remember how the story ended, but, like, that kind of stuck. I was like, "Well, that's not fair." It wouldn't happen nowadays.
Ivy shared a similar experience, "And, you know, they talk about women in the workforce and the challenges, but you don't really get an idea. You know?" Other participants reported being turned off by discussions of potential challenges and realities of the workforce for women and discounted the veracity of the information. Specifically, Bess remembered, The only time that we ever talked about it was in the human resources class. I was respectful of the fact that she was the professor, but that was one class where I felt like, "Wow, you're really gonna clobber the fact that I'm a girl." Just talking about women in the workplace. I feel like there was no-may-eh- This type of resistance is a typical response to information that does not fit with your current belief system and identity (Hardiman & Jackson, 1997).

Perceived Rules of the Game
Systems literacies are essential for navigating new discourses (Hines & Johnson, 2007) as they allow a person to understand how a discourse works and facilitates reading and interpreting the "rules of the game" that must be followed in order to succeed.
When asked about their perceptions of the rules of the game in the work world when they were in college, nearly unanimously, participants reported that when they graduated, they believed that performance and evaluation related processes would be fair. Hope "assumed that promotions, feedback, and salaries were determined by performance, dedication to the job, and career goals." They believed they would participate in a standardized, predictable and controllable process. For example, Ada believed "you do your, like, your three years here, you get promoted. Your three years here, you get promoted." Faith, "assumed it was based on time spent at a job." Ivy shared her belief that hard work would lead to success, "I thought the keys to success all came down to being a hard worker with good work ethic and working well with your coworkers." Essentially, while in college all of the women assumed that employment decisions would be fair and merit-based and that if they worked hard they would be rewarded.
Participants also asserted their beliefs that society was post-sexism in the workplace, so being a woman would not effect their evaluation or aspirations.
Organizations and their processes, in their minds, were gender neutral. Bess said confidently, I think as baby boomers continue to exit the workforce and all these-these new people are coming in, the millennials are starting to work and the opportunity for new ideas and fresh ideas are coming to fruition more often, it'll continue to change cuz I think my generation forward, we've all been taught a very different way.
Ivy agreed, "But I think a lot of it is an older thing and hopefully being phased out, and hopefully the younger generation…" Additionally, none of the participants reported having thought deeply about work life issues during college or remembered discussing it with their peers. They generally had predicted that life was "gonna all be the same way it always was, never get harder" (Cece). Beliefs about the rules of the game clearly aligned with the women's work life aspirations when they graduated.

I Can Have It All
When asked about their aspirations at the time they graduated, the participants reported that leadership roles and status were tantamount. Ada believed that the COB experience strengthened her aspiration to become a partner at a large accounting firm.
Cece reported that her aspirations were the same as when she started college: to be a "VP or CEO of a big, global company." Faith was less specific, but remembered being committed to having a leadership role in corporate America. Hope clearly remembered wanting to work for a big company but reflected sex-role stereotypes about leaders to explain her reluctance to seek a leadership role. She said, "probably not CFO or CEO status. But I don't know. I think I have more of a quieter, introverted personality, so I think I don't have maybe the personality for one of those big roles." Interestingly, both Hope and Faith also reflected on their major and job choices and shared that they both had transferred to business from other majors which they believed to have less earning and career potential -art and textile design. Practicality won out over passion.
In terms of aspirations related to family and life, the women reported diverse and contradictory goals and plans. Ada clearly did not respect women who chose motherhood over career and saw that path as a "settling." She said, To summarize, the participants shared memories of their experiences at the COB and their perceptions of the impact of those experiences. They reported ambivalence over the impact of the gender gap at the COB, emphasized the impact of faculty on their choices of major and career path as well as their beliefs about their own abilities and potential in particular fields. In retrospect, the participants described the COB as a "bubble" providing little exposure to the realities of the work world.
The participants graduated believing that they were entering a fair and gender-neutral workplace and that they could potentially "have it all." Next, I will review the findings related to the participants' experiences after college and how they perceived that their undergraduate experience impacted that.

After College
The Hope suggested that women are not given the same chances as men, I think just because it's such a big company, and I felt, like, so small and, like, unprepared and, like, I didn't know how to do anything. I think men think they're better at it. I think that's the perception. I don't know. Maybe just because there aren't as many women CEOs, and I think that they think that they've been doing it perfectly fine for the last however many years, and they should continue to be in those positions. But they don't really give women a chance to prove themselves.
Cece agreed that the opportunities are not equal for everyone, Despite first identifying the incident as a perceived inequity, Cece was unwilling to call the experience discrimination but instead minimized her own performance.
In line with these observations, Ivy highlighted the pervasive traditional sex role stereotypes that exist in corporate organizations.
You know, you really need to realize that, like, it's really not equal. And it's hard, too, because you still have these old-fashioned mentalities of, like, the woman stays home and does this, and it's your responsibility, and, like, "Why can't you go to work and then take care of the kids and then cook dinner and do this?" And it's, like, "Okay. I can only do so much in a day." Hope echoed this observation and pointed out that while things may have improved over the years, these stereotypes are still holding women back.
I think that companies and management are less likely to consider women for high profile positions because of the possibility that they could have children which would require time off and that they might want to leave, work part time, or be generally less available. I think there is a perception that women are less likely to be dedicated to their careers/companies and might focus more on family at a certain point in their lives. There is less of a fear of this with men.
Faith expressed her uncertainty about the situation she expects to face in her future.
And sometimes it's easier for us to get out. I mean my fiancé is an electrical engineer. And my mom will say-she goes, "When your kids-you have kids, they start school," she goes, "You probably don't have to work if you don't want to." But do I want to?
Here, Faith is exposing a well-documented contributing factor leading to women opting out of the workforce: the pay gap. Her fiancé makes more than she does, and she will not need to work. But does she want to, in the face of traditional stereotypes?
In addition to describing structural inequities and gendered stereotypes, the women also shared experiences of co-workers consistently showing greater respect for men. Ella shared, "I work with a partner who would rather listen to a guy with 2 years of experience rather than me, who has seven years of experience. The partner is completely oblivious to this." Hope shared a similar perception, "In my experience, at least with some cultures, men seem to respect input from other men over input from women. This is based on my experience with upper management at two different companies." Faith talked about how this inequity may impact women, "I think it would take a very strong person, a female to be shot down a few times and to walk into that room that's all males that's in those suits and to hold their own until she breaks ground." Some participants recognized the danger of asking for special treatment or accommodations for family or work life balance. Faith shared that she was afraid to talk about plans to have a family or to ask for a flexible schedule, "you're afraid to push-because you're afraid because you say that they're-you're not gonna get the promotion." In contrast to their perceptions of gender harassment at the COB, the participants now readily recognized and reported gender-based harassment and microaggressions, microinsults and invalidations in the workplace including: sexual objectification, relegation to second-class citizenship and ascription of intelligence and leadership ability to men (Sue, 2010 There was, like, this upstairs, downstairs thing, and he for sure hated that I sat upstairs and that I had a CPA, and you know, was a woman. He once dictated a letter to me to type for him.
Reactions to gender discrimination were varied. Joy expressed resignation about the pay gap and whether she expected to be paid less than men "I don't like it, but yeah. I think it's almost engrained in you, between learning about the glass ceiling and gender differences and all that stuff that it's something that [existed]." Dawn suggested that the harassment experiences have some value in that "they toughen you For women, in the minority, there is a greater cost for speaking up. Hope reflected, "I think that women are also less likely to speak their minds for fear of how people will perceive them or their input." This is the case even when facing obvious sexual harassment in the form of sexting by a supervisor. Cece shared, Cuz you're scared that like you're gonna get-I feel like they always …And you just feel like, I feel like you can never report, you never wanna like report those cases cuz you're like, they're gonna, they're gonna like turn to me and say like I was wearing a shirt that was too low, or-you know what I mean?
Yeah. It's like more trouble than it's worth, sort of, to report stuff like that.
Ella echoed this sentiment from the opposite perspective. She shared a belief that playing the victim held women back from leadership, I think with women there's a lot of things that are preventing us from being better leaders. And, um, one thing that, like, I think specifically-and this is not coming from me. This is not my opinion. I just heard it somewhere.
Women, when they come at a problem in the workforce, or like, when somebody's treating them unfairly, they automatically think of themselves as victims.
This view may contribute to the reticence of women to report legitimate harassment for fear of being viewed negatively and face organizational repercussions. In summary, the women shared a view of the work world that was rife with inequity and discrimination for women.

The Real Rules of the Game
These experiences in the work world led all of the women to revise the simple, straightforward rules that they originally believed would lead to professional success. The message Joy received was "be friendly, but not too friendly." From the women's perspective, the rules of the game also included adopting more stereotypical masculine behaviors such as being unemotional, tough, decisive and outgoing. The women privileged these more masculine qualities and asserted they were essential for leadership and professional success. In some cases, they learned And so I think that men are better at it.
Ella has a recipe for success and thinks she is missing two of the three key ingredients: My view is that in order to make it in the business world, you need to have 3 qualities: (1) Smart, (2) personable (i.e. shmoozer), and (3)  Resigned, Ivy pointed out the double bind of the balancing act for women when she said: I believe that women face more challenges in the workplace than men. Overall we are statistically not paid the same as men. We have more of a family obligation than men. In today's society it's still expected of woman to be the primary parent and be more flexible with work. Unfortunately with today's economy woman are not able to stay home as much as in the past and are forced to go back to work sooner. I know a few people that were criticized for placing their child in daycare because they have to go back to work. They might have wanted to stay home but were unable to live on one salary. Just doing a good job is not enough for women to succeed. The need to "overperform," "put in the time" and "prove yourself" were other new rules that the women described. For example, Joy said, I even just said this to my co-worker. I was just like-I don't know what she said to me, but I said, "Like I see how hard [supervisor] works and how hard [supervisor] works, and they're so successful." So I feel like I need to put in as much time.

Hope concurred,
There is also an element of over-performing that I've found is required. It is also extremely important to go above and beyond your job duties as much as possible. Staying late and working from home on weekends is often necessary to show your dedication even when you are not paid overtime. Offering to help out, learn new tasks, and cross train to cover when others are not available shows that you are flexible and valuable to the team.
Cece described being exhausted from trying to follow all the rules and is not seeing the result she hoped for, …like you went to high school, you worked hard, right? For everything. Went to college, worked really hard. You go to the real world, you work hard, but then you don't get any reward for it, so you kind of just like are worn out.
The participants acknowledged the difficulty in managing the double bind that all of these rules sometimes created for women. Dawn observed that the rules for women were sometimes applied differently to men and women:

Me:
Could she get away with being the kind of leader he is?
Dawn: No. I-oh, I don't think so.

Me:
Could he be the kind of leader she is?
Dawn: Uh, he should be, but [laughter] he's not.
Bess has witnessed the same phenomenon, I think that a lot of times when you have an assertive female boss, she's a bitch. She can't do anything. A guy does the same things, "Nice work." Tap on the tush and you move on with your day. But if a woman does it, sometimes it's viewed negatively or like she's-she's a bitch.
Similarly, Grace has received performance feedback about being "difficult" and was told that she "shouldn't talk back so much." The women all expressed feeling pressure to internalize the rules of the game to succeed at work. Adoption and internalization of the rules of game can be evidence of what Gee (1996) calls a liberating literacy. A literacy that can allow individuals to get along and survive in the dominant discourse through "mushfake" or adopting the dress, speech, behavior of the dominant discourse without fully accepting all elements of that discourse. Ivy went so far to suggest, "Everyone feels like they have to play the game." Faith concurred, I think I can be myself-at least the professional me. I have made friends at work as well that I talk to outside the office & on social media. I try to find a balance between work and life…which I know I sometimes hide and alter my behavior with that. Cece shared a similar approach, "I've always taken the approach to be quiet and respectful first before showing my true colors and personality." Ada described the double standard for men and women at her organization, I feel like especially with accounting, just like personality-wise, like there's a lot of very outgoing guys in that, but the girls aren't. But I feel like, like you just realize how-like you realized quickly to like be an equal you can't be a, like a bimbo. So, so the guys might be spouting off whatever, and I'm not….you have to learn how to behave a certain way.
Not all the women were comfortable agreeing that they changed their behavior to fit in and couldn't be "themselves." For example, Grace asserted by email.
I definitely act more professionally at work, through language, clothing, etc. I choose which stories I tell with co-workers who aren't my age -When a partner asks how my weekend was, I won't tell them that I really partied it up that weekend for my friend's birthday, I'll tell them instead about a family thing I did. I think that's probably just tailoring myself to my audience? But I don't know that that equates to not being myself, it's just tailoring to my audience, which is an important skill as an [job title]. I did consider learning how to play golf, but I never ended up doing it. All the guys played in a Saturday golf league together, and I don't think women played. I know some other girls took golf lessons in their first couple of years in public. So I learned to refine my approach.
Cece has observed both the double-bind and mushfaking that one of the leaders at work employs: This female partner that I have is in the office like, no one is likeeverybody's scared of her. Like she walks into the, like a meeting or whatever.
Like when she came in to talk to us as first years, she just like drops the F bomb all the time. Like, she was like, "When I um got promoted to partner and I did this like two year"-rotation over in Japan, or wherever she went.
She's like, "I told my husband like he needs to quit his job and move, like"-I mean, she's just like a very like strong, powered woman. So now I'm like so scared to like speak-it's hard for me to communicate with her, though, like.
When I wanna talk about like raises, how I'm not really happy with it, I just feel like I can never justify myself enough cuz I'm not like as much of a powerful woman as her. It's like really-The only reason why people respect is cuz she has to act that way. Like, it's like outrageous the way she acts. To like get recognized, yeah. You kind of have to be quirky, you know?
Cece then lamented the unfairness of the situation, " [Men] can just pick and choose how they wanna act and nobody questions it ever."

Can't Have It All
When discussing their current aspirations for leadership, most women shared that they were largely discouraged by what they were seeing in the workplace. Nearly Ivy still wants to move up, "I wanna do more, and I wanna learn more, and I wanna be responsible for more." Dawn reflected on her identity as a career woman, "There's a lot of me working cuz I enjoy it. And I think it defines a lot of who I am. I like doing something that [laughter] I'm good at." Bess is also still extremely committed to her identity as a career woman, " I hope to be in a career position, in a management role. I hope to be married with at least two kids, and an all around, great mom and career woman." Conversely, Cece's identification with her career has really been shaken, Different than while in college, nearly everyone's aspirations included considerations for life/family and balance. Ada, who was very ambitious when she graduated, still believes she could be leader but "I wouldn't necessarily want the path to get to the end result" which would include delaying starting a family as she sees it.
Similarly, Bess asserted, "I will never live to work. I will always work to live. Um, I think it's really important to be able to detach and shut off your phone and have you time or us time or family time or whatever the case is." Cece was shifting focus away from corporate leadership to "getting that job that's like attainable and like reasonable,

Summary
Analysis of the 10 interviews and emails from the participants resulted in the development of eight themes, five that included information related to the participants' experiences while at COB and three related to the participants' experiences since they graduated from COB. While at COB, the participants revealed ambivalence about the impact of the gender gap on their experiences and aspirations. They recognized its existence, but were unsure of the impact and nothing at COB highlighted or discussed it. They also described the significant influence of faculty and coursework on major choices and subsequent functional aspirations but not on leadership aspirations.
Participants went on to describe the COB as a "bubble" that prepared them technically but failed to expose them to the realities of the work world and build necessary soft skills. The fourth theme centered on the rules of the game that participants perceived were the keys to success: work hard and you will be recognized. Finally, the last theme explored the aspirations for leadership, work and family that the women had at graduation. These revolved around leadership roles and status and participants reported not anticipating any challenges balancing work and life.
After college, the participants' expressed the realization that, "it's really not equal." They also summarized what they now believed to be the real rules of the game: be friendly and act masculine to succeed. These experiences and new understandings of the world of work resulted in what they described as tempered aspirations for work. They were now seeking balance with reference to newly discovered life and family goals. The significance of these findings, as well as their implications for research and practice, are discussed in Chapter 5.

Summary of the Study
Women have become the majority in higher education participation (HERI, 2013) and represent nearly half of the workforce in the United States (Barsh & Yee, 2011). However, women continue to be grossly underrepresented in corporate business leadership (Catalyst, 2013) and other traditionally masculine fields of study and career paths (AAUW, 1999;Barone, 2011). Using a thematic narrative analysis, I identified emergent themes and categories from the narrative texts and eight themes emerged in two overarching temporal categories.
During college themes were: gender matters?; faculty and coursework influence; COB as a "bubble" (Dawn); perceived rules of the game; and I can have it all. After college themes were: "it's really not equal" (Ivy); the real rules of the game; and can't have it all.

Discussion and Implications for Practice
In this section I will discuss how the emergent themes discussed in the findings chapter provided insight into the guiding research questions and aligned with existing literature. I will also address implications of the findings for practice in colleges of business.

Shifting Meaning Making about Gender
The first research question asked: How, if at all, do business school alumnae make meaning of the gendered climate of the business profession? Prior research has focused on a number of issues: a continued chilly climate for women driven by underrepresentation of women in traditionally masculine fields of study and career paths; persistent gender stereotypes of leaders; discrimination and microaggressions; and a continuing double bind for women in the masculine discourse (Billing, 2011;Curtis, 2013;Eagly & Carli, 2007;Sadker & Zittleman, 2009 This closely aligns with the literature, as discussed in Chapter 2: despite the documented reality of sexism, one study found that undergraduate students perceive gender discrimination as being of little consequence and that they will enter a genderneutral workplace (Sipe, Johnson, & Fisher, 2009). Such beliefs lead to potential job dissatisfaction, decreased aspirations in the face of reality and turnover once these women once they enter the workforce.
A particular tension emerged between the recognition that there were " a lot of men" (Joy) at the COB and a denial of the existence of gender discrimination or any individual impact of the gender imbalance. Most of the women described experiences while at COB that could be defined as microaggressions but they were reticent to describe this as harassment, "I don't know it's because I'm a woman…" (Ivy).
Several dismissed gender discrimination as a thing of the past. They dismissed cautionary stories and warnings from women faculty. They simply did not believe gender discrimination applied to them, had affected them to date or would affect them in any way in the future. Joy shared, " I'd like to believe that I'm very much in control of that." The tendency of the participants to minimize the possible impact of gender discrimination on their own experiences and second-guessing their perceptions of the situation are typical responses to gender microaggressions as described by Sue (2010).
In alignment with the perceptions that gender would have little to no impact on them or their experiences in the future work place, the women asserted their personal agency to control their future performance and careers (perceived rules of the game).
Hope summed up the beliefs of nearly all of the participants, "I assumed that promotions, feedback, and salaries were determined by performance, dedication to the job, and career goals." Additionally, the women all expressed high confidence in their abilities to attain their aspirations (mostly focused on money, security, independence).
The participants shared a unanimous belief that, once in the workplace, if they worked hard, they would be rewarded. They expected the rules of the game related to professional success to be objective, fair and gender-neutral.
Related to work-life issues, the women shared having given it little thought while in college (I can have it all). They did not anticipate having any issues balancing work and life in the future. Cece believed that life was "gonna all be the same way it always was, never get harder." Some of the women held somewhat contradictory gender stereotypes about work-family issues. Two shared negative views of sacrificing career for family and strongly believed that they would never be stay-at-home moms. Two others shared a more traditional mindset and communicated commitment to having a family and beliefs that they would need to put their careers on hold eventually to make that a reality. Nearly all of the women acknowledged that gender does indeed matter and that the rules of the game are much more complex and politically influenced than originally perceived. Additionally, the women who reported plans to start families, had redefined their definitions of success, resulting in tempered aspirations for leadership roles. For example, Ivy summed it up, You know, you really need to realize that, like, it's really not equal. And it's hard, too, because you still have these old-fashioned mentalities of, like, the woman stays home and does this, and it's your responsibility, and, like, "Why can't you go to work and then take care of the kids and then cook dinner and do this?" And it's, like, "Okay. I can only do so much in a day." In relation to performance evaluation, past research has shown that some women are unaware of the importance of factors beyond performance or time for career advancement such as visibility and relationship building (Catalyst, 2008).
These findings were clearly supported in this study. Within a few years of joining the workforce, most of the women reported having come to the realization that working hard (working long hours and achieving objectives) may not be enough to achieve success. Hope lamented, "They really don't give women the chance to prove themselves." Ada added, "the more 'likeable' you are, the more likely you are to get ahead." These assertions lie in direct opposition to their beliefs while in college. Catalyst research (2008Catalyst research ( , 2010 has shown that a lack of awareness of these "unwritten rules" and lack of access to informal networks through which to learn these norms, may severely impede women's advancement. While efforts have been made to make rules explicit in handbooks and human resource policies, the "real" rules that dominate behavior and decision-making are often implicit and longstanding, built around the dominant masculine discourse that existed unchallenged for decades. The unwritten rules are learned through experience, mentorship and access to leaders and power networks (the old boys' club). As was true for women in this study and has been supported in the literature, women (and other minorities) lack access to these resources (Catalyst, 2008(Catalyst, , 2010. The women also shared the realization that the rules of the game required adopting more stereotypical masculine behaviors to succeed. The women reported learning that they shouldn't be emotional or cry (Dawn). Several of the women privileged masculine leadership behaviors and expressed the belief that since they were not tough or decisive, they could not be successful. Other women provided examples of women leaders who adopted more masculine behaviors and were succeeding. They also cited the belief that failing to have masculine characteristics (e.g., ruthlessness, toughness) equates to lack of leadership potential. Hope reflected traditional gender stereotypes to explain her reluctance to seek a leadership role. She said, "probably not CFO or CEO status. But I don't know. I think I have more of a quieter, introverted personality, so I think I don't have maybe the personality for one of those big roles." Prior research suggests that women and men leaders are positioned differently; women are not seen as being natural leaders of people, where men are (Katila & Eriksson, 2013). Ada also recognized the double bind of adopting masculine behaviors for women, "I feel like it's very difficult for a woman to move up at XYZ because they have to like you but at the same time you have to kind of be a bitch. Cuz otherwise you're not gonna survive." These findings align closely with the literature reviewed in Chapter 2 related to the commonly held views of the ideal employee, manager and leader that continue to be associated with men and masculine identities (Alvesson, 1998;Katila & Eriksson, 2013;G. Powell & Butterfield, 1981 and privileging masculine identity and ways of thinking and living (Billing, 2011;Curtis, 2013;Eagly & Carli, 2007).
Recently released research exposed the early foundations of this leadership bias against women. In the study, both boy and girl teenagers expressed bias against girls as leaders in powerful professions (Weissbourd, 2015). Kerfoot and Knights (1998) documented the increasing pressures on both men and women to adopt more masculine behavior and the privileging of masculine work culture. The women in this study had experienced this pressure. Bryans and Mavin (2003) found that women managers face multiple contradictions, whether to learn to fit in to the masculine paradigm of management or play a different game. In a study by Devine, Grummell and Lynch (2011) women reported having to develop an "elastic self" to negotiate the demands of masculine management cultures. After graduation, the women in this study uncovered the "real" rules of the game for women to succeed as leaders: be friendly and act like a man; and "career success equals sacrifices" (Faith).
Additionally, as discussed above, the participants reported not actively considering work-family balance until after college. While in college, they denied the possibility that work-family choices would impact their leadership and career aspirations. After college, they were clear that traditional gender roles persisted, requiring women to make difficult choices, negotiate tradeoffs and develop specific skills to balance multiple work-life roles (Barsh & Yee, 2011;Galinsky, Aumann, & Bond, 2011). Where balancing work and family had seemed abstract and irrelevant during college, most of the women were now actively facing this challenge.
According to the real rules of the game, the participants believed that over performing, long hours and sacrifice were required for leadership success. Most of them saw these requirements as incompatible with having a family. Additionally, based on their observations of other women in the workplace, many were considering stepping back from their careers to start a family. Faith shared, "now I don't wanna be in leadership…all the women in the leadership position, most of them aren't married and they don't have children." These findings echo past studies suggesting that women make career decisions based on their perceptions of work-life issues and the incompatibility between active parenting and senior leadership roles (Liff & Ward, 2001). Participants of this study who reported still aspiring to leadership roles and planned to have families perceived their organizations as supportive of women and work-life balance. Bajdo (2001) found that organizational cultural practices related to gender equity were the most important predictor of the disproportionately low numbers of women in management and masculine fields. Several of the participants described organizational practices that would not support gender equity (e.g., unenforced harassment policies, unrealistic work hour expectations, lack of flexibility), despite citing formal policies to the contrary. The implicit cultural rules may be related to their decisions to leave or choosing not to advance.
Post-college, the women nearly all described tempered aspirations for leadership and much more complex definitions of success that no longer focused on roles and status but on the ability to balance work and life/family. This is supported in the literature on women's career development that finds women to be more likely to consider work-family issues and are more sensitive to the perceived incompatibility between parenting and senior leadership roles (Anderson, Vinnicombe & Singh, 2010;Liff & Ward, 2001;Sallop & Kirby, 2007). Some participants expressed being discouraged by what they saw women leaders in their organizations doing (e.g., delaying families, acting like men) and experiencing (e.g., discrimination, difficulty progressing up the ladder). Several appear to have developed "girl disease" (Smith & Chesterman, 2009) as described in Chapter 2. Ada, who was very ambitious when she graduated, still believes she could be a leader but "I wouldn't necessarily want the path to get to the end result." The women were taking the real rules of the game into account to review and revise their aspirations for leadership. Dawn was clear that, "a successful woman today, for me, is balancing."

Varying Perceptions of the Impact of College Experience
The The overrepresentation of men as students and faculty produced a subtly chilly climate at COB. Some participant perceptions of the impact of the gender gap on classroom interactions echo the findings of Sadker and Zittleman (2009) about the chilly climate women experience in the classroom due to the masculine discourse of education. Hope described, "I think women can sometimes feel out of their comfort zone when they are in the minority which could lead to participating in class less or asking fewer questions for fear of being judged." Ivy remembered that she was often asked to type and take notes for her team and Dawn echoed that she did not always feel respected in group activities dominated by men.
In the classroom, gender bias is expressed as a series of microaggressions and microinsults with cumulative impact. Microaggressions most relevant to women's experiences are delivered verbally, non-verbally and environmentally (Nadal, 2010;Sue, 2010;Sue & Capodilupo, 2008) and include: sexual objectification; ascription of intelligence and leadership ability to men-assumption of inferiority; relegation to second-class citizenship in organizations; devaluation of women's values and ways of communicating and interacting; sexist language and jokes; restrictive gender roles; denial of the existence of gender inequity or discounting the impact of gender on life success; and denial of individual sexism. The women did not believe men faculty could effectively relate to or support women students. Dawn said, "The faculty…they're all old, white guys! And like, come on! It's tough to relate to them.
They don't relate to these young girls." Ivy explained how men professors were incapable of teaching the realities of gender for women in the world of work, "he doesn't have a lot of experience-as a female in a business." Several participants shared stories of microaggressions bordering on microassaults in the classroom perpetuated by faculty members who were men. They described being objectified and teased for their appearance, ignored in the classroom, and treated condescendingly. Dawn remembered one faculty member, a man, "We didn't feel supported. He would talk down to us all day long." Two participants reflected that objectification and other microaggressions made them feel exhausted and demoralized (Babaria et al., 2012). Microaggressions have been found to produce a chilly or gendered climate for women and have subsequent effects on their aspirations and identities as potential leaders (Sue, 2010). The findings of this study echo these realities.
The second emergent theme during college describes the significant impact and influence that faculty and course work have on women students' decisions, aspirations and beliefs about their abilities. Students clearly viewed faculty as experts in their fields and took to heart faculty assessments of student skill and potential.
Even off-hand comments from a faculty member had the ability to create, strengthen, weaken, or even destroy, aspirations. Several participants reported choosing majors and career paths based on off-hand comments by professors who expressed a fixed mindset view of intelligence (Dweck, 2006). These professors asserted that some students naturally had the skills and/or personality to succeed; other students did not.
This fixed view of skills limits students, particularly women, from further exploring a field and developing requisite skills (Dweck, 2006). Fostering a growth mindset can increase persistence for women in non-traditional fields (Yeager & Dweck, 2012).
Unfortunately, this did not happen for many participants in my study.
The participant comments also reflect internalization of the beliefs heard from faculty about a fixed (versus growth) philosophy, an assumption of inferiority (microaggression) and showed that the women were relatively quick to withdraw from situations of potential failure. As described in Chapter 2, women may be more likely than men to limit career aspirations and interests because they believe they lack the necessary capabilities to succeed. After experiencing challenges in a class or being told that they do not have what it takes (Mangels et al., 2006), women are more likely to choose courses, majors and careers with the greater perceived likelihood of success due to both internal and external factors (Bandura, 2001;Eccles, 1994;Pajares & Schunk, 2001;Wilson et al., 2007). Performance in entry-level classes and faculty support are influential. Kay and Shipman (2014) reported that women, in general, appear to suffer from a crisis of confidence, leading them not to act on their ideas and subsequently hold themselves back from achievement. Bess remembered, "I had a finance professor tell me that if I don't know what my problem is, she doesn't know how to help me." Dawn had a similar experience and changed majors due to the professor's failure to support her learning.
In terms of what impact COB had on them, the women unanimously reflected disappointment that their undergraduate experience had not better prepared them for the realities of the gendered climate of business. Their somewhat naïve and idealistic view of their future workplaces and experiences was not challenged in any way by the "bubble" at COB as will be discussed further below. The third emergent theme summarizes the participants' unanimous view of COB, and undergraduate education in general, as being a bubble with little exposure to the realities of business or preparation of the skills necessary to succeed. According to their reflections, the women's views about gender were not actively shaped or challenged by the COB.
Specifically the women expressed frustration with not having a more realistic understanding of the "rules of the game" at graduation. They believed that a predominantly men faculty with little real life experience using a lecture-based pedagogy was ineffective for teaching women how to manage and lead in real organizations. While most of the participants did not expect to have women professors, Joy pointed out the important role of same gender faculty industry experience in providing effective examples of challenges and successes for women, "I think you do it through storytelling. I think that you kind of show your-like through your work at XYZ and stuff, those experiences that you share, um, basically just showcase like how badass a woman could be." As discussed in Chapter 2, significant prior research has emphasized the importance of same-gender role models, for women's success in masculine fields and leadership (Carter & Silva, 2010;Catalyst, 1993;Parker & Welch, 2013;Ragsdale, 2013;Ramsey, Betz, & Sekaquaptewa, 2013;Riebe, 2012;Ropers-Huilman & Enke, 2010;Settles, Cortina, Malley & Stewart, 2006;A. Smith, 2012;C. Smith, 1997C. Smith, , 1998C. Smith, , 2000Westring et al., 2012;Whitehead, 2010;Wilson, Kickul, & Marlino, 2007). These relationships help women build literacies and comfort in a masculine discourse and support professional women's career aspirations and professional identity development (Beaman, Duflo, Pande & Topalova, 2012;Douvan, 1976;Levine, Mechaber, Reddy, Cayea, & Harrison, 2013;McDonald & Westphal, 2013).
Exposure to women leaders and role models raises aspirations and sex atypical career identification for girls (Beaman et al., 2012;Ramsey et al., 2013). Findings from my study support prior research. Participants recalled few (or no) exposure to women role models, leaders or professors in the COB.
According to the participant descriptions of pedagogy in use at COB, the majority of courses in the COB rely on a transmission model of teaching (Kohlberg & Mayer, 1972). Professors play the role of the sage on the stage and espouse an injection model that builds a known and accepted base of knowledge that is not up for argument or discussion (Munby et al., 1997). Educational institutions have been criticized for employing a hidden curriculum which seeks to reproduce existing oppressive systems of relations in society and indoctrinating the privileges of the dominant groups (Anyon, 1980) and this appears to be the case at COB as none of the participants could recall learning anything about women leaders or women's topics.
Hope shared, "I don't think that I ever felt like the University was catering to women necessarily in any way or, like, helpful, I guess, in pointing out, I guess, the obstacles in the business world and stuff for a woman."

Recommendations for Practice
In response to these findings, I will now outline recommendations for Colleges curriculum, pedagogy and structure (Gutierrez & Rogoff, 2003;Kozulin, 1994). It is argued that, given this power, schools are "fundamentally tied to a struggle for a qualitatively better life for all through the construction of a society based on nonexploitative relations and social justice" (McLaren, 2003, pp. 70-71). The undergraduate experience may narrow or magnify perceptions of gender differences as they relate to academic self-confidence and engagement, choice of undergraduate major and career aspirations (Curtis, 2013;Miller & Sisk, 2012;Paris & Decker, 2012;Sax & Arms, 2009;Sax & Bryant, 2006;Sax & Harper, 2007). Therefore, college provides a critical opportunity to strengthen aspirations and gender atypical beliefs. Research has suggested that business schools specifically reproduce traditionally gendered and classed understandings of identity and business (Hall, 2013) and teach a masculine bias (Mavin & Bryans, 1999, 2004. Narratives from 10 women alumnae support these conclusions. In contrast to the methods reportedly used in this COB and by colleges of business in general (Mavin & Bryans, 1999, 2004, the goal of social justice education (SJE) is full and equal participation of all groups in society that is mutually shaped to meet their needs. Social justice includes a vision of society in which the distribution of resources is equitable and all members are physically and psychologically safe and secure-a society where oppression does not exist (Adams, Bell & Griffin, 2007 (Lewis, 1992) and continues to shape beliefs about work climates (Stalker & Prentice, 1998 (Gutierrez & Rogoff, 2003). An effective social justice curriculum must 1) include content that allows all students to feel valued and represented, 2) incorporate multiple perspectives, 3) be supported by representative supporting history and research, and 4) use inclusive methods of delivery, learning and assessment (Adams & Love, 2009). It should name the differences, name privilege and teach across difference (Blackburn, 2007). Additionally, it should recognize and address resistance by members of privileged groups (Goodman, 2001) and oppressed groups (Ogbu, 2000). Further, Adams (2007, p.15) presented the core frameworks of a social justice education practice:  Ramsey et al., 2013;Steele, 1997). For example, studies in STEM disciplines found that school environments and curricula that were more welcoming to women and taught resistance to traditional stereotypes, promoted identification with scientific fields and persistence for women students (Ramsey et al., 2013).
All of these practices are closely aligned with the Human Resource process of Realistic Job Preview (RJP). RJP performs as a discourse socialization process that allows new organizational members to acquire necessary social and content knowledge and skills to make an informed decision about joining and ultimately to participate successfully (Wanous & Reichers, 2006). The incorporation of RJP in organizational recruiting practices ensures that candidates are fully aware of the organizational culture and job requirements. For women in business school, RJP for organizational leadership may increase person-job fit and person-organization fit and possibly lead to greater persistence for women leaders in their future organizations.
In combination with this literature, and grounded in the reflections and recommendations of the participants in this study, I make a number of recommendations for COBs. First, I recommend that COBs incorporate opportunties for women to interact in a woman-only space to learn about leadership, curriculum about the masculine discourse and the rules of the game, and exposure to feminist, same-gender faculty, guest lecturers and current exemplars.
Exposure to, and challenging of, implicit gender bias has been shown to be effective in changing attitudes of students toward increasing persistence in sex atypical career identification for women (Merrick, 2012). Additionally, discussion of the statistical realities of gender underrepresentation and its measured impacts in predominately masculine fields and organizations should be included (Barsh & Yee, 2011;Catalyst, 2013;Debebe, 2011;Edwards, Elliott, Iszatt-White, & Schedlitzki, 2013;Ely et al., 2011;Ibarra & Petriglieri, 2007Soares, Cobb, et al., 2011. Career self-exploration should encourage women to consider gender atypical career paths as well as traditional ones (Eagly & Carli, 2007;Hill et al., 2010) coupled with education about the growth mindset. Developing a growth mindset (Yeager & Dweck, 2012) has been shown to promote resilience in the face of the challenges that women will face in sex atypical fields of study and career paths. The growth mindset emphasizes that skills and behaviors for any field of interest can be developed and are not "gifts." Additionally, critical discussions about the pressures on women in traditionally masculine roles and fields to behave like men would help women develop coping tactics and prepare them to negotiate identity conflicts between gender and professional identities (Bagilhole and Dainty, 2009;Hatmaker, 2013).
Exposure to same gender role models and mentors raises aspirations and gender atypical career identification for women (Beaman et al., 2012;Betz & Schifano, 2000;Douvan, 1976;Levine et al., 2013;McDonald & Westphal, 2013;Mael, 1998;Merrick, 2012;Ramsey et al., 2013). Revised COB curricula and programs should provide multiple opportunities for women students to learn about, and meet same gender and counter stereotypical role models via readings, vidcasts, conference attendance, mentor programs and speakers series. These role models could include faculty with corporate work experience or successful women alumnae.
Engaging alumnae to participate in a mentor program with students would be optimal.
Due to the gender asymmetries that have existed for years, there are fewer women alumnae than would be needed for 1:1 mentoring. Group mentoring facilitated by online discussion platforms (via LinkedIn or other) could be very effective and provide further opportunity for networking among students. As part of their interactions, women role models can be directed to intentionally expose students to the existence of unwritten rules and norms of dominantly masculine workplaces related to performance, advancement, networking and leadership (Catalyst, 2008(Catalyst, , 2010Parker & Welch, 2013;Xu & Martin, 2011) including work-life balance choices and their implications. Encouraging critical discussion and reflection on difficult topics will help women make informed and empowered decisions about their careers (Betz & Schifano, 2000Bierema, 2010Gervais & Hoffman, 2012).
In addition to providing leadership development and consciousness-raising for women students, it is essential to focus on the role of faculty in combatting bias to improve the climate in COBs. I recommend a faculty development series to supplement the current mandatory online harassment training that comprises the extent of gender education for faculty in many universities.  (2012) showed that when individuals are simply exposed to diversity there is little attitude change. However, when individuals were exposed to diversity and had their beliefs about diversity challenged, they experienced positive attitude change toward the target. Participants in the present study enumerated various micgroaggressions perpetrated in and out of the classroom by both men students and faculty including: objectification; relegations to second-class citizenship; ascription of intelligence to men (Sue, 2010) and invisibility (Nadal, 2010). Workshops aimed at informing and shaping attitudes of faculty (and students) toward bias and breaking bias habits can make a difference for those who are the target of discrimination. For example, an intervention workshop intended to increase gender bias literacy  in STEM faculty produced increased bias awareness and led to increased commitment to changing behavior to promote gender equity for students and faculty. I suggest that faculty at COBs regularly participate in similar workshops aimed at decreasing bias and supporting the integration of inclusive pedagogy. These workshops could be founded on reported student cases of microaggressions and their impact, to emphasize the relevance of the training and garner buy-in for participation.
Curriculum and pedagogy must work against the dominant discourse that affirms and validates existing gendered practices (Lewis, 1992). As a foundation for a SJE curriculum, Connell (1996) suggests first a careful assessment for gender bias in: 1) the accepted definitions of masculinities (and femininities) and lack of multiplicity and plurality; 2) regimes -power relations (who reports to whom, who has power, what types of treatment are tolerated and/or supported); 3) the division of labor within the school (work specialization -who does what in the college, on student teams and in the classroom); 4. patterns of emotion (feeling rules -what is okay related to the expression of emotions); and 5) symbolization (language, value of knowledge areas, curriculum materials, career advisement). A faculty development workshop could invite faculty to consider and critically evaluate each of these issues as they relate to their course designs and interactions with students. For example, faculty can be supported to evaluate the sources of information they share with students (text books, cases, information media), and seek to actively reformulate and restate things in a nondeficit, gender-inclusive way (Sadker & Zittleman, 2009). Textbooks and other books should be chosen to be gender inclusive, and if they aren't, that reality should be confronted and discussed in the classroom. Efforts should be made to seek out more representative options. In general, coursework should work to build media literacy, to ensure that students are able to critically evaluate the media and information that they consume-particularly as it relates to gender stereotypes (Connell, 1996;Sadker & Zittleman, 2009).
Faculty development could encourage and facilitate incorporation of discussions of gender, power, the feminine and masculine into the curriculum (Blackburn, 2007;Connell, 1996;Martin, 1995). It would also develop faculty comfort in leading discussions of careers and work options that are inclusive, representing the value and legitimacy of all societal roles and providing exposure for all students to all career paths regardless of gender or gender stereotypes. Faculty should also actively question the assumptions about assumed roles in student groups and the division of labor in the classroom. Specifically, faculty need to initiate discussions questioning the roles men and women take and are assigned in group assignments. For example, students should discuss: why women should and often do take notes in group meetings and why women are assumed to be better typists or organizers.
Additionally, research by Yeager & Dweck (2012) support the idea that a growth mindset promotes resilience in the face of challenge for women. According to their research, the belief that intellectual abilities can be developed-that they are not an innate gift-can be taught. Faculty have a key role in teaching this belief. A faculty development workshop could share this research and provide practical support for incorporation into course curriculum and pedagogy. Fostering this mindset is crucial to increasing persistence of women in non-traditional majors (Yeager & Dweck, 2012). Faculty must be made aware of the extraordinary impact they have on the aspirations and beliefs of their students. Yeager and Dweck's (2012) research suggests that promoting a growth mindset in students is a simple process. Faculty can simply discuss the concept at the start of each course and endorse its validity for the current course.
In addition to the development recommended for women students and faculty, it is crucial to break the cycle of privilege for the men students who share the classroom with women students and who will enter the same workplaces with their women peers. With this in mind, I also recommend the integration of SJE into COB coursework for all students. As discussed above, SJE should name intentionally identify differences, name privilege and teach across difference (Blackburn, 2007).
Additionally, it should recognize and address resistance by members of privileged groups (Goodman, 2001) and oppressed groups (Ogbu, 2000). First, coursework should include teaching all students about implicit bias awareness, similar to the faculty workshop content. Devine, Forscher, Austin and Cox (2012), used an educational intervention to reduce implicit racial bias in students. The intervention successfully increased awareness of implicit bias, concern about the impact of the bias, and desire for strategies for reducing bias. The intervention produced a relatively long-term reduction in bias, awareness of bias and concern about discrimination in general.
Making both men and women students aware of gender-based discrimination, bias and its impacts, can provide them all with literacies necessary to have the strength to confront discrimination and ultimately change the status quo. Given the low numbers of women faculty in non-traditional majors in co-educational environments and the dearth of women role models in textbooks and curriculum, COBs must intentionally and strategically provide exposure to same non-traditional role models to both men and women students. Exposure to counter-stereotypes has been shown to successfully reduce stereotypes and prejudice for men and women (Paluck & Green, 2009) and at the same time increase divergent or creative thinking of participants (Goclowska & Crisp, 2013).

Value of the Study
Women undergraduate business students have been largely ignored in the research about women's experiences in traditionally masculine fields. They make up a significant proportion of the pipeline for leadership roles but fail to achieve these roles post-graduation. Studies that contribute to making women's experiences in undergraduate education visible will further inform improvements to curriculum in the historically masculine field of business. Past studies have demonstrated that business education (as compared to other educational programs) largely reproduced traditional gendered and classed understandings of identity and business success (Hall, 2013) and perpetuated preferences for the masculine managerial stereotypes and occupations (Fernandes & Carbral-Cardosa, 2003;Katila & Eriksson, 2013;Paris & Decker, 2012). Bryans (1999, 2004) found a distinct masculine bias in management education and a failure to incorporate women's experiences in business, rendering women invisible. More recent literature has continued to highlight the persistent issue of gender discrimination and a chilly climate for women at business schools (Kantor, 2013;Mojtehedzaheh, 2014;Scott, 2014a). Changes to curriculum to increase undergraduate business alumnae's ability to successfully manage in the masculine discourse may encourage more women to take on leadership roles in corporate America and make their experiences while in college more positive and growth producing.

Reflections on Methodology and Implications for Further Study
As a developing researcher, my comfort with the use of the chosen method for data collection and analysis is under construction. Additionally, there are opportunities to expand the methods to provide different and possibly equally rich analysis. First, interviewing is an art. As discussed in Chapter 3 Limitations, my phrasing of questions and incisiveness of follow up questions improved during the course of these interviews, but would no doubt improve further should I have further opportunity to continue conversations with these women. Historical interviews rely on the memory of participants. The use of a longitudinal approach in the future could improve the trustworthiness of the narratives collected. Talking to women during their undergraduate experience, or at least at graduation, and then again several years after transitioning to work may produce richer results. Additionally, I believe that the stories and reflections captured electronically via email added richness to my data.
Participants had time to reflect on questions and our discussion and remember additional experiences. Having taught numerous online courses using discussion forums, I have found that some of the richest stories are shared online and in discussion with peers-a virtual focus group. I believe increased use of this method to future studies would increase the depth of participant memory, reflection and personal benefit.
Narrative analysis was selected as the method for studying the experiences of business alumnae during college and in transition to work and their perceptions of the impact of COB on those experiences. It is the best method to document stories from a group that has been silenced by the positivistic, gendered approaches of business education research. As discussed in Chapter 3, the analysis of the narratives employed Riessman's (2008) triptych of narrative analytical strategies: thematic (what), structural (how) and dialogic/performance (identity performances). Immersion in the data led me to use only the thematic lens for this study. However, I believe that use of the dialogic/performance lens could be used in future studies of this population to increase understanding of their navigation of discourse and identity. Exposure to critical feminist paradigms has been shown to help women develop an internalized gender identity, literacies and manage challenges (Fisher, 2001;Rogers & Garrett, 2002). It would be interesting to explore the potential for intentional identity development during undergraduate education.
The sample for this study was an appropriate start for this previously unexamined population. However, future studies could explore a broader sample of women to include current students, older alumnae and more alumnae. Looking at the experiences of women in small and not for profit organizations would be of interest as well. Intentionally seeking alumnae who have not continued a relationship with the Alumni Services Office would also improve the sample. In conjunction with or in addition to the longitudinal approach suggested above, future studies could also take a more targeted case study approach with one or two individuals and a broader source of data about their experiences. Additionally, replication of the study at other institutions is necessary to explore whether the experiences of these women is transferable or local.
Two additional avenues of study could be explored. While I did not specifically study the development of social or feminist identities in the participants, I did know the literature (reviewed in Chapter 2). While analyzing the transcripts and discovering the emergent themes, I recognized potential evidence of identity development both during college and after college. This could be a rich data source and merits further study. Future research using feminist identity development scales could guide a better understanding of what experiences lead to development, and coping strategies of women in the masculine discourse and ultimately how to build those into business school curricula.
The influential role of faculty was an emergent theme of this study. Therefore, an investigation of the attitudes of men and women faculty about development of women students for leadership and the masculine discourse is also merited. Future studies could also explore faculty perceptions about the impact they have on women students and their beliefs about how they and their classes are perceived by women students. This study only collected data from students.

Summary and Concluding Thoughts
This study both confirmed some of my existing perceptions of women student experiences at the COB and challenged my beliefs about the impact of college experiences on future work experiences. As a faculty member, I would like to think that undergraduate education has a positive impact on students' transitions to the world of work. The women in this study confirmed that they felt well-prepared for work, technically, but once in the field they realized that they were ill-prepared for the realities of the work world for women.
As a feminist educator, I was not happy to hear these stories. I agree with Stalker and Prentice (1998) that students will bring existing stereotypes, identities and beliefs with them into the undergraduate setting, developed over years of exposure to attitudes that may slot women into particular roles in life and that "if they leave with them unaltered, the university is not doing its job of encouraging students to consider the full range of avenues open to them" (p. 62). Higher education must encourage critical thought and development as Noddings (2006)  Obviously, we are failing at this role in student development. It is important to continue talking about gender, challenging assumptions about gender and listening to and supporting students as they grapple with these ideas.
The women also clearly communicated the influential role faculty play in encouraging or discouraging their aspirations for particular fields. Faculty must wield this power responsibly and be cautious about making off-hand or casual remarks to students. Particularly women students. Even in jest. As a faculty member, I take these findings to heart.
During the interviews, I unfortunately heard much of what I had previously heard anecdotally from my women students about their experiences with bias.
However, I was surprised by the pervasive ambivalence participants shared about the existence and impact of gender bias while simultaneously describing incidents that could be defined as discrimination both legally and ethically. As a woman faculty member, it is my responsibility to educate students about harassment and discrimination against all marginalized groups. This study reaffirmed my commitment to this responsibility. It is also my responsibility to confront harassment and microaggressions by students and faculty when I witness them. I need to be a role model for women and men students about how to productively confront discrimination and combat bias.
Narrative research is difficult and takes time. It is difficult because of the personal interactions the researcher has with the participants. Maintaining distance while also participating in an intimate discussion with someone is difficult. It is also very difficult to put aside other roles when conducting research of this type. I found myself slipping into my educator role during interviews when discussing bias and feminism. As Clandinin (2013) says, both interviewer and participants are partner participants, telling, retelling, and reliving the experiences being narrated. It is difficult to fully participate while maintaining a professional distance. Practically, in the process of participating, alumnae may deepen and evolve their own understandings of their professional aspirations and identities-a form of consciousness-raising and confirmation/disconfirmation. The same is true for the researcher.
It takes time to analyze transcripts and stories. It takes time for emergent themes to become clear. As an impatient person, eager to draw conclusions, narrative analysis provided me the opportunity to slow down, listen to the data and allow themes to emerge naturally.

Conclusion
This narrative study of business alumnae's experiences during their undergraduate studies opens a new conversation about how undergraduate experiences influence women's aspirations and skills for managing the masculine discourse of business. Narrative Inquiry is in direct alignment with a feminist perspective and provided the opportunity to document stories from a group that has until now been rendered silent by the prevailing positivistic approaches to research privileged in the discipline. Additionally, much of the prior literature about the gender gap in corporate leadership has focused on the experiences of women already in the workplace.
In this study, semi-structured interviews and electronic communications allowed ten alumnae to share stories about their college and professional experience and their perceptions about the impact of those experiences on their aspirations and life choices.
Thematic narrative analysis rendered eight emergent themes about women's experiences before and after college. The findings suggest significant shifts in the perceptions of gender, the gender gap and its personal implications once women enter the work world. Additionally, women reflected on the unrealistic, minimal, and sometimes negative impact of their experiences while in college on their perceptions of gender. Participant observations and reflections point to opportunities that business undergraduate education has to better prepare women students for the realities of a corporate work world still dominated by men. As a result of these findings, I recommended two specific changes COBs can make to improve outcomes for their women students: a women student leadership development program and inclusive education faculty development workshops.

APPENDIX B: Introductory Participant Email
Dear Participant, My name is Aimee Phelps Lee and I am a Ph.D. candidate in Education at the University of Rhode Island/Rhode Island College. My dissertation research seeks to document the experiences of alumnae of the College of Business and explore how that experience shaped their identities and aspirations and equipped them for the world of work in corporate America.
I have been a full-time faculty member at the University of Rhode Island College of Business for the last 5 years and have taught there since 2001.
I am contacting you because the Alumni Office at University provided me with your email as an alumna of The College of Business in the last 3-8 years. If I have reached you in error, please let me know or simply ignore this email. I would like to invite you to participate in my research.
The research will consist of two in-depth interviews about your experiences at University and your subsequent career and life experiences. I will be sharing my findings and thoughts about our first conversation with participants via email to ensure that I have understood what you told me and am accurately portraying your experiences. This feedback will inform the second interview to ensure that I am making the best use of your valuable time.
Interviews will preferably be held face to face at a location and time of your choice. If necessary we can conduct the interviews on Facetime or Skype.
Your part in this study is confidential and voluntary. None of the information will identify you or your organization by name. All records will be kept in a password-protected file, accessible only by me and pseudonyms will be used in any written analysis.
If you are interested in participating, please email me back or call as soon as possible so we can further discuss your participation! Major * 0.

Current relationship with URI
Do you keep in touch with any faculty or alumni from URI? If yes, who and how often 0.

Did you take a class with me (Aimee Phelps Lee)?
Check all that apply.

APPENDIX F: Follow Up E-mail to Participants
Happy Fall! I hope everyone had a great summer! I am so very sorry that it has taken so long to get back to everyone. It took most of the summer to get all of the first round of interviews done and transcribed -and then school started….I am just now digging back out.
I really enjoyed talking to all of you. It was such an amazing experience for me. I really appreciate the time and thought you all gave.
I need two more things from you to close the loop and complete my data collection. Please respond by email before November 1. Or if you prefer, we can schedule a phone call or meeting.
First, I have begun to analyze the interviews and am finding some common themes and experiences. Not everyone agreed on all of these, but I am trying to tease out some of the key takeaways. Please read through the list below and let me know what you think. Did I miss anything? Did I misconstrue anything? Do these make sense?
• Entered undergrad with high career aspirations and plans for marriage and family -graduated with similar aspirations and plans • Overall: Undergraduate experience had little impact on aspirations for leadership, identities related to work and life or skills for navigating genderbased challenges. • During undergraduate: o Limited or ineffective exposure to female role models or gender-based work/career challenges o Limited exposure to 'how' to achieve aspirations (for example: alternative career paths, getting a job, negotiating salary, seeking promotion, managing office politics). o Gender composition of faculty and student body was noticeable and had some impact on learning and undergraduate experience • At graduation, believed o They were prepared for the real world o Work life balance was not a consideration or a concern o Gender-based challenges might exist, but won't have a personal impact APPENDIX F Con't o What were your expectations about how you would be treated in the workplace? o How did you think promotion, feedback processes, salary decisions and similar career processes would work? o What did you think the keys to career success would be? o How did this compare with reality? • A few of you mentioned that it was 'harder' to be a woman at COB (vs. in other departments, classes, activities at University), if you agree with this, can you explain how it was 'harder?' • A few of you said that you felt you 'couldn't be yourself' at work. Can you describe how you have changed your behavior or hidden things at work in order to be more successful? Or how not making changes has impacted you? Did you learn how to do this before leaving University? How? • Where do you envision yourself 10 years from now? Work? Family? Life?