University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Averting the gaze: gender bias in the fashion industry

(USC Thesis Other)

Averting the gaze: gender bias in the fashion industry

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

Averting the Gaze: Gender Bias in the Fashion Industry
by
Natalie Salvador

Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
A dissertation submitted to the faculty
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Education

August 2022

© Copyright by Natalie Salvador 2022
All Rights Reserved

The Committee for Natalie Salvador certifies the approval of this Dissertation

Anthony Maddox
Brandon Martinez
Monique Datta, Committee Chair

Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
2022

iv
Abstract
The fashion industry has a problem with gender bias. Women comprise 85% of fashion design
students and 85% of fashion designers yet less than 3% of brand creative directors are female.
This study investigates the ways in which female fashion designers have experienced gender bias
in the fashion industry and the effects of gender bias on the identity and career paths of female
designers. Gendered expectations for creativity shaped by historic precedents ascribe success to
men. Within the feminized fashion industry gay men who have historically excluded from other
fields are ascribed success at higher rates than their female counterparts. Women often toil in the
background and are ascribed success in terms of wearability. In contrast, men are often granted
genius status and allowed to dictate their vision of the ideal woman. The phenomenological
study used social role theory as the theoretical framework to investigate how gendered
expectations shape women’s identity, skills, and career outcomes. Educational solutions to
address entrenched gender bias in the fashion industry include curriculum development and
faculty training.
Keywords: fashion industry, gender bias, social role theory, gendered creativity, post-
secondary education, fashion design, gender roles

v
Dedication
what is the greatest lesson a woman should learn
that since day one
she’s already had everything she needs within herself
it’s the world that convinced her she did not
—Rupi Kaur, “blooming”
To all women, especially my daughters Eleora and Ilsa.

vi

Acknowledgements
This study could not have been completed without the support of my friends and family,
including my newfound USC Trojan family.
Dr. Monique Datta who kept me on track and offered unwavering support and
encouragement as my timeline kept extending. Dr Anthony Maddox, and Dr. Brandon Martinez
who saw what I could not yet articulate and challenged me to get there. To the amazing USC
faculty who helped me in developing my ideas and clarifying my knowledge: Dr. Rebecca
Lundeen, Dr. Mary Ho, Dr. Alexandra Wilcox, Dr. Adam Kho, Dr. Douglas Lynch, and Dr.
Marcus Pritchard. Finally, to my Cohort 15 classmates, especially TeamSew: Dr Amy Williams
and Joe Essex. Our weekly meetings provided the support and encouragement I needed.
To the women who helped me by telling their stories as part of this process: Thank you
for sharing your experiences. Your stories are helping to bring about change in the fashion
industry.
To my family: Rowel, Jorryn, Eleora, and Ilsa. Thank you for supporting me throughout
this journey as I embarked on yet another degree. Your encouragement through this difficult
journey means so much to me.
Correspondence concerning this dissertation can be sent via email to:
salvadornatalie@gmail.com
There are no conflicts of interest to disclose.

vii

Table of Contents
Abstract .......................................................................................................................................... iv
Dedication ....................................................................................................................................... v
Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................................ vi
List of Tables .................................................................................................................................. x
List of Figures ................................................................................................................................ xi
List of Abbreviations .................................................................................................................... xii
Chapter One: Introduction to the Study .......................................................................................... 1
Context and Background of the Problem ............................................................................ 2
Field Context and Mission .................................................................................................. 4
Purpose of the Project and Research Questions .................................................................. 5
Importance of the Study ...................................................................................................... 6
Overview of Theoretical Framework and Methodology .................................................... 7
Definition of Terms ............................................................................................................. 8
Organization of the Study ................................................................................................... 9
Chapter Two: Review of the Literature ........................................................................................ 10
A History of Gendered Creativity ..................................................................................... 10
Fashion: A Feminized Industry ......................................................................................... 17
The Vortex of Race and Social Class ............................................................................... 26
Conceptual Framework ..................................................................................................... 31
Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 34
Chapter Three: Methodology ........................................................................................................ 35
Research Questions ........................................................................................................... 36
Overview of Design .......................................................................................................... 36
Research Setting ................................................................................................................ 36

viii

The Researcher .................................................................................................................. 37
Participants ........................................................................................................................ 39
Instrumentation ................................................................................................................. 40
Data Collection Procedures ............................................................................................... 40
Data Analysis .................................................................................................................... 41
Credibility and Trustworthiness ........................................................................................ 42
Ethics ................................................................................................................................. 43
Chapter Four: Findings ................................................................................................................. 44
Participants ........................................................................................................................ 44
Findings Research Question 1 .......................................................................................... 45
Discussion Research Question 1 ....................................................................................... 55
Findings Research Question 2 .......................................................................................... 55
Discussion Research Question 2 ....................................................................................... 67
Summary ........................................................................................................................... 68
Chapter Five: Recommendations and Discussion ......................................................................... 70
Overview of Study ............................................................................................................ 70
Discussion of Findings ...................................................................................................... 71
Summary of Findings ........................................................................................................ 71
Implications of the Study .................................................................................................. 72
Recommendations for Practice ......................................................................................... 73
Limitations and Delimitations ........................................................................................... 84
Recommendations for Future Research ............................................................................ 85
Implications for Equity ..................................................................................................... 86
Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 86
References ..................................................................................................................................... 88

ix

Appendix A: Interview Protocol ................................................................................................... 97
Study Participants ............................................................................................................. 97
Interview Script ................................................................................................................. 97
Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 99

x
List of Tables
Table 1 Participant Information .................................................................................................... 45
Table 2 Evidence of Gender Bias .................................................................................................. 46
Table 3 Effect of Gender Bias ....................................................................................................... 56
Table 4 Number of AICAD Fashion Faculty ................................................................................ 75
Table 5 Faculty Training Implementation Costs ........................................................................... 77
Table 6 Faculty Training Follow-up Costs .................................................................................... 79
Table 7 Training Costs for 1% Solution ........................................................................................ 79
Table 8 Faculty Curriculum Implementation Costs ...................................................................... 81
Table 9 Curriculum Development Follow-up Costs ..................................................................... 83
Table 10 Training Costs for 3% Solution ...................................................................................... 84
Table A1 Interview Protocol ......................................................................................................... 98
Appendix B: Participant Quotes on Keeping Up Appearances .................................................. 100
Appendix C: Participant Quotes on The Male Gaze ................................................................... 102
Appendix D: Participant Quotes on Female Support .................................................................. 103
Appendix E: Participant Quotes on Benevolent Paternalism ..................................................... 104
Appendix F: Participant Quotes on The Male Genius ................................................................ 107

xi

List of Figures
Figure 1 Conceptual Framework .................................................................................................. 32

xii

List of Abbreviations
AICAD The Association of Independent Colleges of Art and Design
BCA Benefits Cost Analysis
BIPOC Black, Indigenous, and people of color
BoF Business of Fashion
CEO Chief Executive Officer
CFDA The Council of Fashion Designers of America
CFO Chief Financial Officer
NASAD National Association of Schools of Art and Design
NCES National Center for Education Statistics
NEA The National Endowment for the Arts
NPV Net Present Value
PV Present Value
1

Chapter One: Introduction to the Study
Protests during the Spring and Summer of 2020 sparked conversations on bias in the
fashion industry where traditional colonial practices idealize a White male bourgeois identity.
Current manufacturing and design processes in the industry retain colonial practices where male
led companies exploit people and natural resources in a race to expand profits (Warf, 2012).
Global manufacturing processes rely on female workers who take on piece work where they are
paid a fraction of a penny for each piece completed, while also expected to absorb the costs for
supplies such as thread and electricity (Hurley, 2005; Leslie, 2012). Design processes also rely
on female employment with women filling the majority of entry level jobs (Brown et al., 2018).
Within post-secondary fashion design programs in the United States, 88% of students are female
(Friedman, 2015; Pike, 2016)). For many female students this educational investment does not
result in career advancement (Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2017; Gallagher, 2020). Among
recent arts graduates, Martin and Frenette (2017) noted that female arts alumnae report increased
time looking for a job. When they do get a job, career advancement is difficult within the fashion
industry with less than 14% of major brands having a female board member (Brown et al., 2018).
Research indicates that exclusionary practices in creative fields are based on an
individual not conforming to a White, middle-class, male identity (Allen et al., 2013; Miller,
2016; Oakley et al., 2017). Brown et al. (2018) found that of 535 fashion workers, 100% of
women viewed gender inequality as an issue in fashion, while less than 50% of men did. Within
the Council of Fashion Designers of America (CFDA), 36% of their membership is female
(CFDA, 2020; Ocbazghi & Skvaril, 2019). Less than 2% of chief executive officers (CEOs) in
fashion companies are female, lower than the Fortune 500 company average of 3.8% (Stokes,
2

2017). In addition, brand creative director positions lack female leadership with 2.7% of creative
directors being female (Friedman, 2015; Stokes, 2017).
The purpose of this study is to evaluate the career paths of fashion design alumnae who
graduated from fashion design programs as schools affiliated with the Association of
Independent Colleges of Art and Design (AICAD) in order to understand how biases within the
fashion industry are reinforced. The majority of students in fashion design programs are female,
these students are not represented in fashion industry leadership.
Context and Background of the Problem
Historically, female artistic endeavors have centered in the creation of domestic
handicrafts and clothing production (Hopper, 2015). Art critics and the media have framed these
endeavors as the work of primitive civilizations and socially inferior individuals (Chicago, 2014;
Hopper, 2015). The male dominated fields of painting, sculpture, graphic design, and
architecture (Topaz et al., 2019) are taken to represent the aesthetic of European civilization and
were first established as the domain of an artistic genius (Hopper, 2015). The genius archetype
extends into the fashion industry where men, most often gay men, are idealized as fashion
designers despite the majority of design roles being filled by females (Leslie, 2012; Stokes,
2015; Williams, 2013). Stokes’ (2015) study reported that gay men who experience
discrimination in other industries are at an advantage in feminized industries such as fashion
design where they are quickly promoted.
The passionate, unpredictable and antisocial behavior of an artistic genius is a culturally
accepted ideal that allows for White, male practitioners to achieve higher levels of career success
(Miller, 2016; Stokes, 2017). Wage data from the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA, 2011)
demonstrates that these biases continue. The lowest-paid creative occupations such as
3

dance/choreography are 78% female, while the highest paid artistic occupations such as
architecture are 25% female. The fashion industry exacts a high toll on women through
exclusionary practices that include suppression in wages, career advancement, industry
acknowledgment, and accolades (Business of Fashion [BoF] 2020; Ellen MacArthur Foundation,
2017; Martin & Frenette, 2017; Pike, 2016; Stokes, 2015, 2017). The creative work of female
fashion designers carries less social capital and monetary value than the creative efforts of men
who receive the majority of press praise and recognition (Stokes, 2015, 2017). The one sentence
descriptions on the BoF top 500 list highlight this disparity (BoF, 2021). Hedi Slimane, current
creative director of the French luxury fashion brand Celine is framed as an accomplished
designer and his entire career path is mentioned, highlighting his time at other well known
French luxury fashion brands including Dior and Saint Laurent. In contrast, Phoebe Philo, former
creative director of Celine is mentioned as a one time designer the French luxury brand Chloe
and the name Celine is omitted entirely from her description forcing the reader to use context
clues to infer that Celine is the sleepy bourgeois label she is credited with transforming (BoF
2021). Overall, gender bias thrives while the fashion industry’s hiring practices perpetuate the
White male power structure stunting the leadership career paths for women (Agòcs, 1997; Davis,
1994; Gallagher, 2020; Stokes, 2015, 2017).
Non-profit private art and design colleges have developed post-secondary programs to
educate future creative workers including fashion designers. One such network of schools is the
Association of Independent Colleges of Art and Design (AICAD) which is a group of 36 schools
that work together to mutually develop programming and inform the public on the value of art
and design education (AICAD, 2021). Women, who receive a lower return on their educational
investment (Pennamon, 2018) experience a devaluation of their creative work the moment they
4

set foot in an AICAD classroom (Lindemann et al., 2016). The devaluation of work is
compounded by the entrepreneurial practices embedded in creative work which reward men who
are likely to self promote and negotiate on their own behalf (Lindemann et al., 2016).
Networking within creative fields has been linked to reduced wages for women (Fine, 2017;
Lindemann et al., 2016). These networks subject female students to socially constructed biases
that assign a lower monetary value and level of recognition to their work (Allen et al., 2013;
Henry, 2009; Miller, 2016; Oakley et al., 2017; Stokes, 2017). The focus of this study is to
explore the experiences of AICAD alumnae with gender bias to gain insight into how gender
affects career paths.
Field Context and Mission
The fashion industry is a 2.4 trillion dollar global industry employing nearly 60 million
people worldwide; prior to 2019 the industry experienced a decade of 5.5% yearly growth
(Korica & Bazin, 2019). Yearly growth shifted dramatically during 2020 with the industry
expected to experience a 93% drop in profit as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic (Mckinsey,
2020). The fashion industry provides many jobs for women from factory floors, to retail spaces
and design rooms. However, these jobs are often insecure and unstable with female employment
concentrated within lower levels of the organizational hierarchy (Brown et al., 2018; Hurley,
2005; Leslie, 2012; Stokes, 2017). As organizations shift work overseas these lower level jobs
are shifted offshore whereas male dominated leadership roles are often retained in the
organization’s home country (Hurley, 2005; Leslie, 2012 ).
Within the United States fashion industry employment follows the same pattern with
women occupying jobs lower in the organizational hierarchy (Hurley, 2005; Leslie, 2012;
Stokes, 2017). Production and manufacturing jobs have been relocated overseas and female
5

employment is largely concentrated within the remaining manufacturing and lower level design
roles (Hurley, 2005; Leslie, 2012). Education is often framed as a path for career advancement
(Caputo, 2004; Ma, 2009). Creative jobs such as fashion design require specific training which
has led to the development of programs within art and design colleges to meet these training
needs (Lindemann et al., 2016; Ma, 2009; Martin & Frenette, 2017).
The Association of Independent Colleges of Art and Design (AICAD) is a consortium of
36 non profit art schools in the United States and Canada. Founded in 1991 the organizational
mission is to inform the public about the value of studying art and design. All AICAD schools
are accredited by the National Association of Schools of Art and Design (NASAD) which is an
organization of schools that establishes national standards for art and design education (AICAD,
2021). Fashion Design programs within AICAD schools are held to specific standards regarding
a common body of knowledge and skills, results, essential competencies, experiences, and
opportunities, essential resource based opportunities, and general studies competencies. In
addition to this fashion design programs within AICAD schools are also expected to fulfill
recommendations for general and professional studies. Alumni from AICAD schools in the
United States are some of the top designers in the Fashion Industry including designers such as
Marc Jacobs, Donna Karan, Rick Owens, and Jeremy Scott.
Purpose of the Project and Research Questions
The purpose of this study is to evaluate the career paths of fashion design alumnae who
graduated from fashion design programs at schools affiliated with AICAD in order to understand
how biases within the fashion industry are reinforced. The majority of students in fashion design
programs are female and Black, Indigenous, and people of color (BIPOC), and these students are
not represented in fashion industry leadership. Using the lens of social role theory to examine
6

gendered expectations in the feminized fashion industry may provide insight into why female
students are not choosing career paths that take them from college to C suite. The following
questions, informed by social role theory, could help direct further research into gender bias
within creative fields:
1. How is gender bias evident within the fashion industry?
2. How does the reinforcement of gender bias affect alumnae behavior?
Importance of the Study
Cultural and artistic products are an important aspect of any society. Art and design
disciplines within the United States are modeled on European traditions which allow for White,
middle-class men to create and define artistic standards (Hopper, 2015; Stokes, 2015). Studies
find that racial and gender wage gaps in creative fields are comparable to other industries
(Eisenberg & Laposata, 2013; Lindemann et al., 2016). Research also shows that leadership roles
within feminized design fields such as fashion design, are predominantly White, and male, while
subordinate roles are predominantly female (CFDA, 2020; Stokes 2015, 2017). Within post-
secondary art and design education, women outnumber men, indicating that the devaluation of
female work is not the result of a lack of knowledge, skills, or training (Stokes, 2017). Research
on the experiences of BIPOC, female, and/or working class students pursuing post-secondary art
and design education is limited.
This problem is important to address because in spite of equal knowledge, skills, and
training, creative work produced by artists and designers outside of a White, middle-class, male
identity continues to be devalued (Allen et al., 2013; Chicago, 2014; Hopper, 2015; Lindemann
et al., 2016; Martin & Frenette, 2017; Proudfoot et al., 2015; Stokes, 2015, 2017). All students
are charged equal tuition and invest comparable time and resources into their educational
7

outcomes. This investment does not result in similar returns; evidence from multiple studies
reveals that women and BIPOC students get a lower return on their educational investment
(Lindemann et al., 2016; Martin & Frenette, 2017; Oakley et al., 2017; Stokes, 2017). Recent
racially charged events in the United States have brought a new awareness to how biases are
constructed and lived out in today’s culture. In light of the current reflection taking place, society
has a moral and ethical responsibility to increase access and value in the education, participation,
and production of cultural and artistic products for BIPOC, and female artists and designers.
Overview of Theoretical Framework and Methodology
Applying Alice Eagly’s social role theory (Eagly & Wood, 1999) to females working in
creative fields provides a framework for understanding how gendered biases influence female
career paths and the valuation of female artistic work. Social role theory states that behavior is
shaped by beliefs about gender that are filtered through psychological, social, and behavioral
processes (Eagly, 1987). Stokes’ (2017) research found that within feminized design fields such
as fashion design, the majority of women are employed in subordinate roles, yet men are more
likely to occupy the dominant senior leadership positions of CEO and Chief Financial Officer
(CFO). The framing of success for male designers is more often aligned with stereotypical male
behaviors of control, agency, and dominance (Stokes, 2015). Expanding on this research could
be done by applying social role theory to females working in creative fields providing a
framework for understanding how gendered biases influence female career paths and the
valuation of female artistic work. This descriptive phenomenological study used one on one
interviews of female AICAD alumnae to examine the lived experiences of gender bias. To avoid
centering a White, middle-class, female perspective, race and social class were considered when
selecting participants.
8

Definition of Terms
The fashion industry uses a wide variety of terms that are employed throughout the
research literature. To provide consistency throughout this study the following terms appear
throughout this dissertation.
Agentic describes behavioral traits that are manifested by self-assertion, self- expansion,
and the urge to master (Bakan, 1966; Eagly, 1987).
Communal describes behavioral traits that are manifested by selflessness, concern with
others, and a desire to be at one with others (Bakan, 1966; Eagly, 1987)
Creative fields are an industry or field of employment in which the product or service
contains a substantial amount of creative or artistic endeavors (Caves, 2000).
Cultural work is work defined by a focus on the informational, expressive and symbolic
often in the development of products that have utility and aesthetic content which provides status
and identity (Hesmondhalgh & Baker, 2008; Mears, 2011).
Evolved differences are biological differences between genders (i.e., motherhood) that
shape workplace expectations (Eagly, 1987)
Fashion designer is a person who creates clothing, accessories, and/or footwear (US
Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2021)
Feminized industry is an industry where the majority of workers and consumers are
female (Stokes, 2017).
Gender roles are shared beliefs that apply to individuals on the basis of their socially
identified sex (Eagly, 1987)
Piece work is work that is paid by the completion of each piece instead of hourly (Hurley,
2005).
9

Psychological factors are related to self-efficacy beliefs, feelings of capability, and
perceived inadequacy (Koenig & Eagly, 2014).
Social roles are social norms that apply to people of a particular category or social
position as determined by communities and workplace organizations (Eagly, 1987).
Social role theory is a theory that explains how behavioral expectations are organized
around a male/female gender binary (Eagly, 1987).
Organization of the Study
This dissertation is organized into five chapters. Chapter 1 provides an overview of the
entire paper. Chapter 2 reviews current literature on gender bias in the fashion industry,
examining this literature through the lens of the conceptual framework of social role theory and
intersectionality. Chapter 3 provides an overview of the research methodology and design,
explains the rationale behind the design choices and presents the data collected during the study.
Chapter 4 presents the research findings and Chapter 5 presents possible solutions and
recommendations for future research.

10

Chapter Two: Review of the Literature
This literature review will examine the scant research surrounding gender bias in the
fashion industry. The review begins with the evolution of gender bias in creative fields and the
alignment of gender roles within art and design disciplines. Gender role alignment reveals a bias
toward men in attribution of creative ideas carried into the marketplace, the media and education.
The review will provide an in-depth exploration of each of these areas examining outcomes and
barriers for female fashion designers. To allow space for intersectionality of non-dominant
cultures outside of gender the review will include a discussion on race and social class.
Following the general literature, the review culminates with an explanation of social role theory
(Eagly, 1987) which provides the theoretical framework for the study. The chapter concludes
with an explanation of the conceptual framework which connects the theoretical framework of
social role theory to gender bias in the fashion industry.
A History of Gendered Creativity
Given the push toward gender equality in male dominated Science, Technology,
Engineering and Math (STEM) careers, researchers have chronicled barriers for women entering
traditionally masculinized fields, with few studies addressing barriers faced by women in
traditionally feminized fields related to art and design including fashion design. Data from the
National Endowment for the Arts (NEA, 2011) demonstrates that this is a problem. The lowest-
paid creative occupations such as dance/choreography are 78% female, while the best-paying
artistic occupations such as architecture are 75% male. The fashion industry creates products for
women, designed by women yet only 14% of major brands have a female executive (Brown et
al., 2018). The evidence highlights that gender bias has contributed to a lack of female leadership
within female dominated industries such as fashion design (Stokes, 2015, 2017).
11

The Male Artistic Genius
European traditions and standards that link the idea of creative genius to a White, male,
bourgeois identity inform the structure of art and design fields in the United States. The structure
of creative fields has its roots in nineteenth century cultural values which established the ability
to reason as the supremacy of man above animals and “primitive others” (Hopper, 2015).
Primitive is suggestive of the White male supremacy which has positioned White men above all
others including women and people of color (Hopper, 2015). Agentic behaviors include
behavioral traits that are manifested by control, self-assertion, independence, self- expansion,
and the urge to master (Bakan, 1966; Eagly, 1987). Society has established accepted gender roles
for men and women linking men with agentic behaviors and women with communal behaviors
(Eagly, 1987). Linking creativity to agentic behaviors typically associated with the male gender
leads to bias in the attribution of creativity (Proudfoot et al., 2015). People are capable of equal
creative output; however, society perceives men as more creative and capable of superior
creative work than women (Hopper, 2015; Proudfoot et al., 2015).
Creative work requires and rewards stereotypically agentic male behaviors linking the
idea of artistic genius to the male gender. In employment settings role expectations are an
important determinant of one’s behavior (Eagly, 1987). Social roles have linked masculine
agentic behaviors to creative thought which requires self-directed behavior, self-reliance, and
adventurousness (Proudfoot et al., 2015). The linking of creative thought with agentic behavior
perpetuates the connection of creativity with masculine identity as an all-consuming endeavor
(Hopper, 2015).
Gendered role expectations that align men with agentic behavior and women with
communal behavior support male success. Cultural expectations frame men as the ideal
12

entrepreneur and enthusiastic worker (Miller, 2016; Stokes, 2015) as entrepreneurial labor
practices call for self-promotion with round-the-clock availability. The association of
masculinity with agency supports a divergent style of responding to the world linked with
outside the box thinking (Proudfoot et al., 2015). Expectations for men in generating creative
excellence extend into innovation dominance and the attribution of innovative problem solving
(Miller, 2016; Stokes, 2017). Innovation requires agentic actions such as risk taking, change
management and initiative that are likely to be associated with the male gender (Luksyte et al.,
2016). Connecting the male gender to agentic behavior perpetuates gender bias in the attribution
of creativity and innovation leading to the development of systems that value male creativity
over female creativity (Taylor et al., 2019)
Male dominated art and design disciplines have higher social capital and financial
rewards than female dominated disciplines. Painting, sculpture, graphic design, and architecture
are male dominated fields (NEA, 2011; Topaz et al., 2019). These fields were first established as
the domain of creative genius and are taken to represent the aesthetic of European civilization.
Women’s exclusion from these fields was based on social construction of gender not artistic
ability (Hopper, 2015). Women continue to be excluded from male dominated art and design
disciplines. Gender parity in arts majors was achieved in 1983. Since this time more women than
men have received art degrees, yet secondary art markets continue to boast an oversupply of
male art (Cameron, 2019; Marchenko & Sonnabend, 2022).
Men and women in the same jobs are ascribed talent and creativity framed around gender
role expectations. The gender wage gap in creative fields continues with female artists earning
81 cents for every dollar earned by male artists (NEA, 2011). Within the art world women make
up over 50% of Bachelor of Arts (BA) and Bachelor of Fine Arts (BFA) graduates yet women
13

artists make up 30% of artists represented by galleries (Cameron, 2019). The fashion design
industry boasts similar statistics, over 85% of fashion students are female (NCES, 2017) yet 36%
of membership for the Council of Fashion Designers of America (CFDA) is female (CFDA,
2020; Ocbazghi & Skvaril, 2019).
Art critics, media and academia have perpetuated aesthetic standards in the United States
that favor the European male’s viewpoint over all others. The male dominated fields of painting,
sculpture, and architecture represent a dominant European aesthetic (Hopper, 2015). Multiple
audiences (peers, critics, and patrons) biased in favor of men evaluate the ideal artist as the
creative male (Miller, 2016). These fields have historically excluded women and continue to do
so today (Marchenko & Sonnabend, 2022). Topaz et al. (2019) found that female artists create
13% of work presented in American art museums. Knox (2019) noted that male art students have
a 75% chance of achieving career success whereas female art students have an 18% chance of
the same success.
Current cultural constructs support male success. Burke and McManus (2011) reported
that higher admissions practices in art and design schools overlooked ability in favor of potential
which admissions staff ascribed to applicants based on social class, race, and gender. In the
Think Different ad campaign which ran from 1997–2002, Apple computers featured multiple
examples of creative thinkers from different fields including Albert Einstein, Alfred Hitchcock,
Bob Dylan, Frank Sinatra, Miles Davis, and Pablo Picasso (Proudfoot et al., 2015). Adding
support to the idea of genius being male the only women featured in this campaign (Amelia
Earhart and Jane Goodall) are known for being successful in the male dominated fields of
aviation and science (Proudfoot et al., 2015). Gender role expectations link men to agentic
behaviors such as agency, dominance, and control. Agentic behaviors are seen as a necessary
14

part of creativity and innovation, the linking of agency, dominance, and control with the male
gender has created gender bias in the attribution of creativity. Within organizational structures
this has led to the creation of systems that support and nurture male creativity at the expense of
female creativity.
Women As Tastemakers
Historically, female artistic endeavors have centered in the creation of domestic
handicrafts and clothing production. Artistic endeavors linked with women include quilt making,
embroidery, needlework, crocheting, and other domestic handicrafts (Chicago, 2014; Hopper,
2015). Art critics have classified these female artistic works as craft, framing the pieces as the
work of primitive civilizations and socially inferior individuals (Hopper, 2015). Feminist art
have focused on reclaiming and repositioning domestic handicrafts into mainstream art along
with highlighting gender disparities in major art institutions, yet work remains to be done
(Chicago, 2014). Of the top 100 highest price artworks sold in 2015 only one piece was created
by a woman (Cameron, 2019)
Classifying traditionally female disciplines as craft devalues and penalizes stereotypically
communal female behaviors. Media framing through public critique of creative work has
portrayed women as the makers of domestic crafts (embroidery, quilt making, crocheting, etc.)
and continues to position women as incapable of genius expression (Hopper, 2015). In addition,
social roles stereotype women into behaviors aligned with caring, interpersonal sensitivity, and
emotional expressiveness (Eagly & Steffen, 1984; Eagly, 1987). Cultural values assign genius
status to a male creator possessing feminine qualities of intuition, emotion, and imagination.
However, these same values disqualify women who are the natural possessors of feminine
qualities from the genius role (Hopper, 2015).
15

Historically female art and design disciplines are still majority female and have lower
social capital and financial rewards. Creative fields suffer from a gender wage gap on par with
other industries (Eisenberg & Laposata, 2013; Lindemann et al., 2016). The art world continues
to devalue work by female artists and designers through lower levels of media recognition and
monetary compensation (Chicago, 2014; Hopper, 2015; Marchenko & Sonnabend, 2022). A
survey of major art museums in the United States found that White men created 75.7% of art
displayed, continuing the underrepresentation of women in fine arts (Topaz et al., 2019).
Gendered biases also extend into fashion design where fashion critics and influencers laud the
work of gay men over that of women who produce work of equal quality (Stokes, 2015).
Artistic occupations have uneven gender distribution and pay parity within disciplines.
One of the lowest paid disciplines, dancers, and choreographers 78% of positions are female
(Lindemann et al., 2016; NEA, 2011). Within two of the best-paying artistic disciplines,
architecture and film/television production and direction, 75% and 63% of respective positions
are male (NEA, 2011). Among fashion designers, the average female designer earns $20,000 less
than the average male (Fashion Designers, 2019) and research finds that the gender wage gap in
the arts mirrors the wage gap in other industries (Harvey & Blackwell, 1999; Lindemann et al.,
2016; Marchenko & Sonnabend, 2022). The gender wage gap in creative fields represents a
financial devaluation of female work with males having higher incomes than females (Harvey &
Blackwell,1999; Marchenko & Sonnabend, 2022). Devaluation of female work exacts a
psychological toll on women leading to feeling of inadequacy and diminished self-efficacy
(Eagly & Carli, 2007)
Cultural expectations pressure women to shoulder child-rearing and family
responsibilities. Employers use motherhood myths which align women as better suited to
16

childcare and parenting to justify gender discrimination in the workplace (Verniers & Vala,
2018). Lindemann et al. (2016) found that the gender wage gap also persists for women without
family obligations within creative fields. This same study also highlighted that the flexible nature
of creative work led to the elimination of the motherhood penalty.
Creative structures are at odds with gendered role expectations for female creative
workers. Cultural construction of gender, not a lack of artistic ability led to exclusion of women
from art institutions (Hopper, 2015). In the late 19th century as women moved into male art
academies, female artists were denied access to nude models allowing the male gaze to dominate
art and design disciplines (Hopper, 2015). As women have moved into more agentic roles within
art and design disciplines gender expectations have not been redefined, and women have
continued to assume additional responsibilities such as working, childcare and household
management (Chicago, 2014; Stokes, 2017). The association of artistic genius with men more
than women has created a symbolic masculinization between art and creative genius contributing
to stereotypes linking men with increased creativity (Koenig & Eagly, 2014; Miller, 2016).
Today the stereotypical artistic genius continues to be associated with a male, who is completely
committed to work, and prioritizes artistic output above all personal and family commitments
(Miller, 2016; Stokes, 2015).
Female creative workers occupy subordinate roles within the creative hierarchy. Gender
role stereotypes place females into communal roles with an expectation of helpful behaviors such
as caring for others, personal service, and nurturing goal attainment in others (Eagly, 1987).
Within feminized design fields such as fashion design, senior leadership positions such as
creative director, CFO, and CEO are predominantly male while females fill subordinate roles
such as assistant designer, designer, and pattern maker (Stokes, 2017). Male fashion designers
17

are more likely to impose their aesthetic onto women, and female designers are more likely to
allow women to choose their own look (Stokes, 2015). Stokes’ (2017) study reported that within
feminized design fields, men feel more in control of their schedules, have more flexibility, and
feel more comfortable taking time off.
Looking at these developments through the lens of social role theory provides a
framework for understanding gender bias in the fashion industry. The lack of gender
representation within specific social roles leads to differences in skill acquisition which affects
behavior (Eagly, 1987). Within the fashion industry the work of female designers is framed
around wearability while the realm of genius is reserved for male designers (Stokes, 2015).
Fashion: A Feminized Industry
The fashion industry is a feminized industry; women design, produce, and create products
for women. Women spend three times more than men on clothing and fill most entry level jobs
yet less than 50% of major womenswear brands designers are women (Brown et al., 2018).
Feminist art activists such as the Guerrilla Girls and Judy Chicago have highlighted gender bias
in the form of media recognition, pay parity, and career success (Chicago, 2014). Additionally,
while women make up most of the art and design degree pursuers and recipients today, men
continue to out-earn women in arts related careers highlighting continued issues of equitable
resources given to women within the context of higher education. (Lindemann et al., 2016;
National Center for Education Statistics [NCES], 2017). While research on women in fashion
design is sparse, when examined in tandem with research in creative fields, themes arise for
attribution of creativity including social roles, evolved differences, and psychological factors. In
the development of social role theory, Eagly (1987) presented three critical features of widely
accepted gender role expectations: perceived appropriateness of expected characteristics,
18

consensual nature of expectations, and awareness of consensus. This section will trace the
development of gender role expectations from college to career.
Post-Secondary Education
To best prepare students to join the creative workforce, a formal arts education requires
instruction in industry specific skills, focused training, as well as development of creative
process thinking and practical application. Potential creative workers must demonstrate elevated
levels of skills and innovation as well as be capable of running financially responsible practices
(Allen et al., 2013). Market pressures challenge schools to prepare students for a career while
also answering to assessment and accreditation bodies which demand schools ensure elevated
levels of rigor as well as align to the standards of the university and college assessing
organizations offering oversight in secondary and post-secondary education (Martin & Frenette,
2017).
Educational systems do not support female industry success. Over the past century, more
women are obtaining post-secondary art and design degrees, surpassing men in classroom
studios since record keeping began in 1987, yet their career average earnings continue to trail
those of men (Piper, 2018). Women currently outnumber men within post-secondary art and
design education classrooms, indicating that the devaluation of female work is not the result of a
lack of knowledge, skills, or training (Stokes, 2017). Institutions charge all students an equal
tuition and invest comparable time and resources into their educational outcomes. This
investment does not result in equal returns; evidence from multiple studies reveals that women
get a lower return on their educational investment based on their gender (Oakley et al. 2017;
Stokes, 2017).
19

The financial penalty women experience in the workplace starts in school. Research on
fine arts suggests a bias in favor of men within post-secondary curriculum allowing for male
artists to achieve higher levels of career success (Oakley et al., 2017). Creative fields often rely
on social networks created during school (Fine, 2017). These networks can disadvantage female
students who may be subject to socially constructed biases that assign a lower value to their work
because of their gender identity (Oakley et al., 2017; Stokes, 2017).
Women today make up most students in higher education increasing their enrollment
from 42% of degree seeking college students in 1970 to 56% of degree seeking students in 2016
(NCES, 2018); women’s progress in overcoming gender barriers has been one way with women
moving into areas traditionally studied by men (Beutel et al., 2018). Since the early 1980’s
gender desegregation in college majors has stalled, as men have not moved into traditionally
female areas of study such as education, art, and design (Beutel et al., 2018). Findings suggest
that there is a relationship between cultural feminine norms and gender segregation among
college majors (Beutel et al., 2018). Within higher education women with higher socioeconomic
status make up most students in areas such as art, arts education, and fashion design (Stokes,
2015). Research has indicated that the underrepresentation of students from non-White and low
socioeconomic status backgrounds in art and design programs is linked to subjective and
exclusive decision-making practices within the admissions process (Burke & McManus, 2011).
Gender bias extends into faculty hiring practices at art and design institutions. Analysis of
quantitative data concerning the demographic composition of art faculty in higher education has
found that women are more likely to be employed in part-time non-tenure positions (Warburton,
2006). Faculty hiring mirrors hiring practices in creative industries such as fashion design, a
stereotypical feminized industry, where the glass ceilings manifest as glass runways promoting
20

the career advancement of men, notably that of gay men over women (Stokes, 2015). The data
indicates that despite the flexibility afforded artists by their careers and the elimination of the
motherhood penalty within these occupations, men still are provided their income dominance
(Lindemann et al., 2016). Gender bias in creative fields extends into post-secondary education
where male success is supported through structural inequalities and cultural values that link the
male gender to innovation and artistic genius. Female students observe gender bias in post-
secondary education, graduate and then begin careers in industries that devalue creative work
produced by women.
Framing of Success
Organizational structures in creative industries create barriers to female success. Female
artists and designers find their work devalued when compared to the work of male artists and
designers (Chicago, 2014; Hopper, 2015; Lindemann et al., 2016; Stokes, 2015). Within art and
design fields, the enthusiastic and entrepreneurial nature of creative work is framed as a calling
that should dominate one’s identity and time (Stokes, 2017). These practices appear gender
neutral, but disadvantage women who assume a greater responsibility for childcare and family
life (Stokes, 2015). Within feminized design fields such as fashion design, many women are
employed as designers, yet men are more likely to occupy senior leadership positions of CEO,
CFO, and creative director (Stokes, 2017). Men in these fields can attain a level of creative
responsibility and leadership not equally accessible to women (Stokes, 2015). Taylor et al. ’s
(2019) study noted that gender bias leads to women receiving less support for creative ideas
resulting in reduced creative output.
Social role expectations lead women to be perceived as less creative than men. Women in
feminized industries such as education, art, and design experience a devaluation of their work
21

(Warburton, 2006). Research has shown that the historic involvement of women in the study and
practice of art, and the influences of society, school and family alike have led to the resultant
positioning of women in the art world (Hopper, 2015). Female arts faculty spend more time on
teaching activities, produce more presentations and exhibits, and are paid less than those in other
disciplines (Warburton, 2006). There are also issues of perception around employability related
to arts degrees. Within arts majors’ students need to be realistic about their ability to find
employment related to their degree, 70% of graduates seeking full-time employment related to
their degree are unable to find work (Luftig et al., 2003). When men do choose to study in
traditionally feminine areas, such as fashion design, they are often more successful than women
in terms of awards, media attention, job promotions and accolades (Stokes, 2015).
Applying Alice Eagly’s social role theory (Eagly & Wood, 1999) to females working in
creative fields supplies a framework for understanding how gendered biases influence female
career paths and the valuation of female artistic work. Eagly developed this theory as a model to
explain how gendered differences in behavior result from the cultural, behavioral expectations
around socially constructed gender roles (Eagly & Wood, 1999). Social role theory divides
behaviors around a traditional gender binary of male and female. Men who have become
culturally accustomed to roles with greater power and status exhibit dominant behavior that is
controlling, assertive, directive, and autocratic. Cultural expectations based on observation of
social roles link women to subordinate behavior that is more compliant, less aggressive, more
cooperative, and conciliatory (Eagly & Wood, 1999).
Media representation supports a feminized male ideal that leaves women out. Media
outlets often profile women in relation to their role as a mother and then as a designer framing
rich, White, women as the ultimate consumer. In the United States consumption of products has
22

been aligned to gender roles since the late eighteenth century (Horowitz & Mohun, 1998).
Linking women to consumption continued throughout the industrial revolution where the fashion
industry exploited cheap female labor in the manufacturing process using the rationale that a
woman’s place was in the home to justify low wages and laying off workers (Horowitz &
Mohun, 1998). After World War II the ideal fashion designer for womenswear shifted from
female to male (Tortora & Eubank, 2010). Post-World War II fashions presented a shift from the
tailored masculine styles of the 1940’s to a new femininity popularized by Christian Dior’s “New
Look” (Tortora & Eubank, 2010).
Female success is discounted in favor of expected male success. Female designers are
known to work harder than male colleagues to achieve equitable pay, media attention, and
leadership opportunities (Stokes, 2017). Stokes’ (2015) study highlighted three outcomes that
were influenced by gender bias and gender role expectations. The first was that male fashion
designers were more likely to impose their aesthetic onto women, while female designers were
more likely to allow women to choose their own look. The second was that the framing of
success for female designers was more often aligned with service, female passivity, and
subordination. The third was that the framing of success for male designers was more often
aligned with control, agency, and dominance (Stokes, 2015).
In a field where talent and skill should determine pay structures for creative work,
women are struggling to garner fair pay for equal creative output. Art careers, where project-
based contracts support flexible live work balance hours work for the creative practitioner,
should be where equity in pay and practice exist, yet this is not the case (Lindemann et al., 2016).
Male practitioners in female dominated disciplines are assumed to be more skilled and advance
further within the organizational hierarchy. Meritocratic standards falsely ascribe creative
23

success to men despite equal work produced by women (Stokes, 2015) This problem is important
to address because although women possess equal knowledge, skills, and training, female work
within creative fields continues to be devalued (Stokes, 2017).
Gender bias thrives in the fashion industry; a feminized industry where most workers are
women employed in organizational hierarchies focused on creating products for other women.
Brown et al. (2018) found that of 535 fashion workers, 100% of women viewed gender
inequality as an issue in fashion, while less than 50% of men did. Within the CFDA’s exclusive
membership, 3% of their membership are BIPOC, while 36% are female (CFDA, 2020;
Ocbazghi & Skvaril, 2019). Leadership at fashion companies is disproportionately male, 1.7% of
chief executive leaders are female, lower than the fortune 500 company average of 3.8% (Stokes,
2017). Creative director positions follow the same pattern, with 2.7% of brand creative directors
being female (Friedman, 2015; Stokes, 2015). For the fashion industry to become an inclusive
industry from classroom to studio to C-suite, it needs to address the practices leading to
inequitable levels of pay, provide clear paths for career advancement, and elevate the
contributions of women, and BIPOC (Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2017; Henry, 2009;
Lindemann et al., 2015; Stokes, 2015, 2017).
The male-dominated fashion industry has not addressed ongoing problems related to bias.
The global industry’s hiring practices are exclusionary, perpetuating gender and racial bias
throughout career paths beginning in design classrooms, continuing into design studios and onto
factory floors (Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2017; Gallagher, 2020). The fashion industry exacts
a high toll on women and BIPOC through exclusionary practices that include suppression in
wages, career advancement, industry acknowledgment, and accolades (BoF, 2020; Ellen
MacArthur Foundation, 2017; Martin & Frenette, 2017; Pike, 2016; Stokes, 2015, 2017). Gender
24

bias and racism continue to flourish as fashion’s hiring practices perpetuate the White male
power structure stunting the leadership career paths for women and BIPOC (Agòcs, 1997; Davis,
1994; Gallagher, 2020; Stokes, 2015, 2017).
Media representation has fueled gender bias in the fashion industry with male and female
designer success framed around gender role stereotypes. Current stereotypes place gay men in
the role of fashion designer (Eagly, 2014). Gay men receive more praise through awards and
canonization by the fashion industry (Stokes, 2015). Between 1981 and 2020 the CFDA
bestowed annual awards to 43 women and 128 men (CFDA, 2021). Analysis of media
representation suggested that women’s designs were depicted as consumer driven while men’s
designs were depicted as driven by a personal creative vision (Stokes, 2015).
The Glass Runway
The leadership labyrinth is an obstacle ridden maze through which women must travel on
their journey to influential leadership positions. Unlike the glass ceiling, the labyrinth signifies
that there is not equal access to lower-level positions, suggesting multiple obstacles rather than
one barrier. The labyrinth suggests that there is difficulty along the pathway to leadership for
those outside of a White male identity. The labyrinth limits the expression of the struggles and
actual barriers that hold women from rising in their organizations to top leadership positions
(Eagly & Carli, 2007). Ideas about behavior around gender and gender identity are social
constructions shaped around cultural beliefs and expectations. (Hoyt et al., 2010; Northouse,
2019) There are many glass metaphors used to describe women in leadership. The most well-
known of these is the glass ceiling defined as an unofficially acknowledged barrier to
advancement in a profession that especially affects women. Data shows that 100% of women see
25

gender bias as a problem in the fashion industry compared to less than 50% of men (Brown et al.,
2018).
The glass escalator (Williams, 1992, 2013) is a term coined to describe a shortcut for men
to accelerate past their female colleagues on a pathway to leadership. The glass runway describes
barriers in the fashion industry faced by straight men and all women regardless of sexual
orientation from reaching the highest levels in the industry (Stokes, 2015). The fashion industry
values the work of gay male designers over the work of female designers (Stokes, 2015, 2017).
In keeping with social expectations of gender roles, media representation frames the work of
male designers around agentic behaviors and the work of female designers around subordinate
behaviors.
Media and critics label female creative work as passive or easy when performed by
women, yet the same work is seen as skilled when executed by men. Gender bias has contributed
to a lack of female leadership within traditionally feminized industries (Stokes, 2015, 2017). The
historic precedent of men establishing the artistic standards of femininity exists today (Hopper,
2015; Stokes, 2015). Stokes (2015) examined the gendering of craftsmanship between
comparisons of British designer Alexander McQueen and his successor Sarah Burton. Alexander
McQueen is often described as a skilled expert craftsman, able to create technically impossible
garments. Sarah Burton is described as having a softer and calmer hand. In contrast to McQueen,
Burton, the designer responsible for designing Kate Middleton’s wedding gown, was not credited
for the gown’s intricate detailing. The credit was instead given to her team and the Royal School
of Needlework (Stokes, 2015).
Studies suggest that the gender wage gap in the arts is on par with the income inequality
that exists in other career sectors (Lindemann et al., 2016). Scant research exists targeting this
26

phenomenon in the art and design fields. Most academic research is focused on moving women
into male dominated fields such as STEM while ignoring the possibility of moving men into
female dominated areas of study such as arts. The most comprehensive study ever taken of arts
alumni was conducted in 2013 by Strategic National Arts Alumni Project (SNAAP). Using
SNAAP (2013) study data, Lindemann et al. (2016) designed a comparative quantitative study to
investigate income levels for artists and non-artists with the intention of understanding how the
artworld matches other fields in terms of gender imbalances. Placing stronger emphasis on self-
promotional and entrepreneurial skills for female students during their post-secondary art and
design coursework is suggested as a key potential intervention (Lindemann et al., 2016).
The Vortex of Race and Social Class
Racial and social class identities that fall outside of a White, bourgeois identity supply
added barriers to creative success. Women, and BIPOC are visibly absent in the industry’s top
positions of impact and power (CFDA, 2020; Stokes, 2015). Higher education professionals and
employers ascribe male students from White, middle-class backgrounds more creative potential
helping them find jobs in creative fields faster and pay them more than female students or
students from non-White or working-class backgrounds (Allen et al., 2013; Burke & McManus,
2011; Lindemann et al., 2016). Hiring practices link faster job placement of White, male,
middle-class students within higher ed institutions to individual characteristics such as
motivation, commitment, and autonomy with little attention given to how the system privileges
students who are White, male, and middle-class (Allen et al., 2013). Systemic White privilege
does not improve learning outcomes for any student group, research suggests that diverse student
bodies increase cognitive outcomes for all students (Kim et al., 2017).
27

Ethnic and racial minority students are more likely to have low SES backgrounds and are
less likely to have access to art education. The evidence highlights that students from minority
and/or low socioeconomic backgrounds are less likely to enroll in art and design education
because creative careers are viewed as less financially stable (Ma, 2009). As these students’
progress to post-secondary education, they are less likely to enroll in art and design programs at
colleges and universities. Reduced access to arts education for the poorest members of society is
out of line with the United Nations guidelines for sustainable development.
Socioeconomic Status
There is a lack of access to art education for students from low SES backgrounds. The
cost of higher education across all areas of study have increased nationwide, and funding for art
and design education has decreased (Warburton, 2006). Emerging artists and designers are faced
with the complicated task of justifying an average cost of $245,816 for a 4-year art and design
education (Bradley, 2013). Data from the NCES (2019) demonstrates that this is a problem as
seven of the top ten most expensive post-secondary schools are art schools.
Students who attend schools with high concentrations of impoverished families are less
likely to have access to adequate resources necessary for arts education than those who attend
schools populated by more affluent families (Parsad & Spiegelman, 2012). The implementation
of No Child Left Behind (NCLB) testing policies led to reduced arts education for students from
low SES backgrounds (Baker, 2012). In their 2012 study for the NCES study Parsad and
Spiegelman found reduced access to visual and performing arts education for students from low
SES backgrounds. The study revealed that as the percentage of students receiving free and
reduced lunch increases, availability of arts education decreases. This trend is strongest in music,
28

visual arts, and theater. In addition, there is a low availability of dance instruction at all schools
regardless of SES status (Parsad & Spiegelman, 2012).
Parsad and Spiegelman (2012) found that gaps in secondary programs are larger than
gaps in elementary programs. Likewise, there is a lack of policy support to provide students of
marginalized backgrounds access to art education that affirms their culture, background, and
identity (Kraehe et al., 2016). The implementation of NCLB policies led states such as Louisiana
to waive arts education requirements for schools with low test scores. Test scores did not
improve, and arts education in Louisiana has not been reinstated leaving students without
required access to arts education (Baker, 2012). A focus on testing required by NCLB in K–
12 has created fewer opportunities for students from low SES backgrounds to participate in art
education. This lack of access disproportionately affects students from racial and ethnic minority
backgrounds.
Racial and Ethnic Minorities
Students who are not White are more likely to experience reduced access to arts
education, which further perpetuates the lack of diversity in post-secondary art and design
colleges. Students from minority racial groups are more likely to experience poverty than their
White counterparts (Reeves et al., 2016) and are less likely to have access to arts education
(Robelen, 2011). Robelen’s (2011) study found that in 2008 a quarter of African American and
Hispanic children received arts education compared with about half of all White children. This
decline has been linked to the high stakes policies put in place by NCLB testing policies (Baker,
2012; Robelen, 2011). African American eighth graders also score lower on tests for visual arts
(Charland, 2010). Evidence suggests that this performance may be due to a lack of access rather
than ability. Baker et al. (2011) found that African American adolescents had outcomes at the
29

same level as their peers when provided with high quality arts education. Moreover, a dearth of
minority artists as role models further discourages students from pursuing arts education.
Charland (2010) observed that a lack of African American artists led African Americans teens to
declare that visual art was not a Black thing. Like students with low SES, racial and ethnic
minority students are less likely to have access to art and design education. This lack of access to
art education in primary and secondary education builds a barrier that prohibits arts engagement
as students move into post-secondary education.
Intersectionality in Post-Secondary Education
Gender and racial inequities begin in the fashion design classroom. Within post-
secondary fashion design programs in the United States, 88% of students are female, and 65% of
students are BIPOC (Friedman, 2015; NCES, 2017; Pike, 2016). Black and Latinx students who
graduate from post-secondary arts institutions are more likely to cite student debt as a career
barrier (Frenette & Tepper, 2016). This investment does not result in similar returns; evidence
from multiple studies reveals that women and BIPOC students get a lower return on their
educational investment (Lindemann et al., 2016; Martin & Frenette, 2017; Oakley et al., 2017;
Stokes, 2017). Social networks created during post-secondary art and design school are
important for career growth in creative fields (Fine, 2017; Lindemann et al., 2016). These
networks frequently disadvantage students outside of a White, male, middle-class identity by
subjecting them to socially constructed biases that assign a lower monetary value and level of
recognition to their work (Allen et al., 2013; Henry, 2009; Miller, 2016; Oakley et al., 2017;
Stokes, 2017).
Low participation for students from minority and/or low SES backgrounds continues into
post-secondary education. NCES (2012) statistics indicate that students from low socioeconomic
30

backgrounds are less likely to enroll in post-secondary art and design programs. Art and design
majors are less diverse than other majors. Students from minority and/or low SES backgrounds
are less likely to study art and design (Caputo, 2004; Ma, 2009). When these students do pursue
art and design, admissions practices discourage them from applying to art and design school.
Burke and McManus (2011) noted that admissions policies at one institution combine the idea of
fairness with transparency. Doing this fails to address complex socio-cultural inequalities in the
identification of potential art and design students. The study reported that a focus on individual
practice rather than on policy discourse and the subjective construction process obscure the way
potential is defined. This focus allows for privilege to subjectively advantage certain students
while others are excluded.
Underrepresented students who study art and design have complained that the curriculum
at art and design institutions ignores issues experienced by students of color (Sherrid, 2016). In
the researcher’s documentary interviewing students at the Rhode Island School of Design
multiple students refer to the “room of silence”. This term is derived from the silence minority
students claim to experience during the critique process when they present a work of art with
themes that address racial issues. A lack of access to art education in primary and secondary
education gives students from underrepresented groups and/or low SES backgrounds less
experience in visual and technical skills development than students from more affluent
backgrounds (NCES, 2012). Students from low socioeconomic backgrounds are less likely to
have access to art education during their K–12 experience and therefore are less likely to seek in
post-secondary art and design schooling. Having a low SES status is more common for racial and
ethnic minorities, which leads to their decreased enrollment in post-secondary art and design
programs.
31

Increasing access to arts education for students from underrepresented and low SES
backgrounds is important to address for numerous reasons. Evidence suggests that arts education
leads to increased civic engagement and decreased dropout rates for low SES students (Kraehe et
al., 2016). The United Nations Conference on Trade and Development report (2010) highlighted
that nurturing creativity contributes to social inclusion, cultural diversity and environmental
sustainability while fueling culture, human-centered development and providing a key ingredient
for job creation. It also states that all members of the community should be provided fair and
non-discriminatory equal access to participation and cultural production. The guideline requires
that trade and development policies be consistent with poverty alleviation objectives that pay
attention to the poorest members of society (U.N. Conference on Trade and Development, 2010).
In addition, inclusion of underrepresented and low SES students in art and design post-secondary
education has been shown to increase cognitive outcomes for all groups (Kim et al., 2017).
Conceptual Framework
Social role theory (Eagly, 1987) supplied the foundation for the conceptual framework of
the study. The literature review examined the lack of female leaders within the feminized fashion
industry, framing of female fashion designer success, and the alignment of agentic behaviors
with creativity. Industry expectations mentioned within the review included items that embody
defined gender roles within creative fields including, parenthood, agentic and communal
behaviors, leadership abilities, attribution of creativity, meritocracy, and cultural ideals. Media
framing of the gender stereotypes related to industry-specific factors was discussed in the review
within contexts specific to gender bias within the Fashion Industry. Gender bias is at the center
of the conceptual framework presented in Figure 1 where gendered cultural expectations
organized around evolved differences, social roles, and psychological factors intersect.
32

Figure 1
Conceptual Framework

Culture plays a significant role in gender behavioral expectations. Eagly (1987) indicated
that stereotypes based on observed behaviors inform social role expectations when expected
behaviors align with one gender. For example, helpfulness aligns with female gender roles
(Eagly, 1987). In career paths females inhabit occupations that supply a form of personal service
such as teaching and nursing, while men inhabit helpful occupations that require more agency
such as firefighters and law enforcement officers who place one’s life in jeopardy (Eagly, 1987).
33

Starting with social role theory as the overarching foundation this study seeks to explore
the experiences of perceived discrimination within the careers of female and BIPOC fashion
designers. The study also explores how curriculum within the post-secondary educational
process can be used to influence career path outcomes. Key concepts brought out from the
literature are related but bring various levels of understanding to the significant challenges within
the daily lives of female and BIPOC designers trying to succeed in the fashion industry. As an
example, Stokes stated that women “feel constant stress over reproductive decisions, while men
expressed much less concern over the future. This is one reason it is common for women to opt
out of the industry as they age” (2017, p. 530).
Additionally, data suggests that females perceive bias more than males. Luksyte et al.
(2019) found that within organizations women are described in terms of personal attributes not
accomplishments and are not expected to challenge the status quo, promote new work methods,
disrupt work routines, or behave in an innovative way. While there is no empirical data specific
to the issue of racism in fashion, intersectionality studies suggest that BIPOC women would
suffer additional biases in their search for advancement in the industry (Sanchez-Hucles, 2010).
Crenshaw (1989) wrote that intersectionality and the disproportionate barriers faced by multiply
marginalized persons are of disproportional magnitude. Koenig and Eagly (2014) suggested that
correspondent inference sets stereotypical expectations on career choices that are causally related
to treatment in industries with gender and race inequities. Recognizing the barriers and biases
facing women and BIPOC is necessary for achieving equity in practice.

34

Conclusion
Social role theory states that behavior is shaped by beliefs about gender that are filtered
through psychological, social, and behavioral processes (Eagly, 1987). Socialization strategies
shape cognitive competencies, emotional reactions, personality traits, habits, abilities, and
behavioral norms to prepare boys and girls for adulthood (Wood & Eagly, 2012). Art and design
disciplines have an established precedent of men creating the artistic standards for femininity
that still exists today (Hopper, 2015; Stokes, 2015). Social role theory posits stereotypes are
reflective of social realities based on observational data that become agreed upon gender roles
and influence individuals to engage in behavior that upholds common gender stereotypes (Wood
& Eagly, 2012). For the economic empowerment, cultural enrichment, and social cohesion of all
members in the community, society has an ethical and moral responsibility to increase access in
the education, participation, and production of cultural and artistic products for women,
minorities, and the poorest constituents.

35

Chapter Three: Methodology
The purpose of this study was to explore how gender bias is experienced by female
AICAD alumnae in the fashion industry. Chapter 2 explored research around gender bias in
creative fields and the fashion industry specifically. The conceptual framework illustrated in
Figure 1 encompasses these factors which stem from social role theory (Eagly, 1987). Starting
with social role theory as the foundation this interview protocol explored the experiences of
discrimination within the careers of female fashion designers. The study investigated how
curriculum within the post-secondary educational process has influenced career path
outcomes. Key concepts highlighted in the literature around social role theory are motherhood
and family caretaking expectations, maintaining a work life balance, expected leadership
behaviors based on gender roles, and gender bias in the attribution of creativity and innovation.
These concepts are related but bring distinct levels of understanding to the significant challenges
within the daily lives of female designers trying to succeed in the fashion industry. As an
example, Stokes (2017) suggested that women who take maternity leave face negative
consequences from coworkers and bosses such as lost job prospects, elimination of their position
while on maternity leave, replacement, and demotion.
This chapter provides the detailed methodology for the research project. It begins with a
description of the study participants, outlines the process for participant sample selection and
provides an overview of the research design. The study instrumentation is presented and
examined along with the data collection procedures. The chapter wraps up with a description of
the data analysis and the ethical considerations considered to ensure the confidentiality and
safety of the participants.
36

Research Questions
The following questions, informed by social role theory, were posed to gain further
insight into gender bias within the fashion industry:
1. How is gender bias evident within the fashion industry?
2. How does the reinforcement of gender bias affect alumnae behavior?
Overview of Design
In seeking to answer the research questions qualitative research was determined to be
appropriate for this study to obtain first-hand accounts into the lived experiences of gender bias
by women working in the fashion industry. Within qualitative research, phenomenology focuses
on lived experiences and how individuals understand the world around them (Merriam & Tisdell,
2016). This study uses a phenomenological method to explore the lived experiences of gender
bias focusing on the common and divergent experiences of female designers in the fashion
industry. A phenomenological interview is the primary method used in seeking to understand the
basic structure or essence of an experience (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Interviews were suitable
for this study because they allow for documented expression of women’s experiences and
perspectives and allow for participants to express in their own words how they have experienced
gender bias in the fashion industry.
Research Setting
This study was a qualitative phenomenological field-based study that used interviews to
collect data from the alumnae of AICAD fashion design programs. Data from the Census
Bureau’s American Community Survey (ACS) Public Use Microdata Sample (PUMS) indicates
that 28,900 people were employed as fashion designers in the United States (Fashion Designers,
2019). The same data reveals that 84% of fashion designers are female and that on average
37

female designers earn $20,000 less than male designers. The United States Bureau of Labor
Statistics (2021) noted that a bachelor’s degree is required for an entry level job as a fashion
designer. The selection of alumnae from 4-year fashion programs at AICAD schools ensured that
participants aligned with available data on typical fashion designers and fulfilled the research
question requirements. To promote accurate data collection and allow for a diverse geographic
representation of participants interviews took place over Zoom.
The Researcher
The problem I am interested in exploring is the centering of a White, middle-class, male
identity as the standard for an ideal fashion designer. I am a female educator and instructional
designer, currently working in a 4-year BFA fashion design program at a private art college in
Los Angeles, California. This problem concerns me because I am educating future designers and
I have worked as a designer. In my work experience, the work of men has been valued over my
own work. In my current role, I provide guidance to female, non-White, and working-class
students who will encounter this issue within their career paths and I also provide training to
faculty as they educate future artists and designers. My identity as a female is most salient to this
problem because I have experienced the pressures of social construction around my female
identity, and I have also experienced discrimination based on my gender.
Potential blind spots for me are the multiple identities (White, cis gender, heterosexual,
mother) I hold that align with the dominant cultures present in society. My alignment with
dominant cultures has allowed me to experience privilege related to my identities that may have
a more favorable position. There is evidence to support gender, racial, and class discrimination
within the fashion industry (Martin & Frenette, 2017). To mitigate my biases and potential
blind spots reflective memos were used throughout the study design and data collection process
38

to allow me to engage with the reactions I had to the data collection experience. Peer review
was also used to help identify biases that may be built into wording of the interview protocol
(Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). In the data collection and analysis portion of the study maximum
variation (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016) of participants and peers was a crucial step in cultivating
the diversity of perspectives needed to decenter the dominant cultures I align with.
European traditions inform the aesthetic standards for art and design disciplines in the
United States which favor the European male’s viewpoint over all others. A bias in favor of men
has been documented within art and design institutions and curriculum allowing for male
practitioners to achieve higher levels of career success (Oakley et al., 2017). Studies find that the
gender wage gap in creative fields is comparable to other industries (Eisenberg & Laposata,
2013; Lindemann et al., 2016). Research also shows that leadership roles within feminized
design fields such as fashion design, are predominantly male while subordinate roles are
predominantly female (Stokes 2015, 2017). Within post-secondary art and design education,
women outnumber men, indicating that the devaluation of female work is not the result of a lack
of knowledge, skills, or training (Stokes, 2017). As an instructional designer and educator within
post-secondary art and design education, I believe that effective self-promotion training, business
coaching, and additional training in agentic roles will avail female student’s further opportunities
for advancement in creative fields. Research suggests that career training interventions can also
lessen the experiences of gender stereotypes on women (Bosak et al., 2012) and open more
pathways for female leadership within creative careers. In keeping with best practices for
diversity, equity, and inclusion a wide range of identities must be carefully and thoughtfully
researched and considered when designing potential interventions to benefit as many people as
possible.
39

Equity and inclusion of diverse perspectives and points of view in the creative fields
would expand opportunities in the field of fashion. By not using a single standard for assessing
work or for promoting gatekeepers, it would allow for different perspectives and points of view
to be valued. In my own industry of fashion design, it would include reestablishing industry
supply chains and processes to allow for a circularity of goods and a prioritizing of local
industries breaking down the current colonial mindset that allows for exploitation of human
rights and environmental abuses. My vision for equity is informed by my identity as a White
cisgender heterosexual female creating potential blind spot as they do not consider the
intersectionality of identities that may also influence bias such as race, class, and sexual
orientation. My multiple identities could lead to interventions that solely benefit female
stakeholders whose identities align to the dominant culture. Current research points to evidence
of racial discrimination within art and design fields, as well as a continued underrepresentation
of racial minorities in related fields (Martin & Frenette, 2017). It is recommended that research
studies which include different identities are also conducted prior to the implementation of any
interventions to address a wider diversity, equity, and inclusion problem.
Participants
Due to the specific criteria outlined in the research questions single stage (Creswell &
Creswell, 2018) non-random purposive sampling (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016) was used to identify
graduates of bachelor level fashion programs at post-secondary degree granting schools that are
part of the Association of Independent Colleges of Art and Design (AICAD). Potential
participants were contacted using my network of colleagues within AICAD schools and the
fashion design industry. Potential participants were contacted using the email address connected
to their organization. Eligibility was confirmed via LinkedIn profiles, and resume verification for
40

participants not on LinkedIn. Initially identified alumnae were surveyed for further self-defining
characteristics: gender, race/ethnicity, age, career stage, and socioeconomic status. To establish
intent at the start of their career’s participants further identified their intention of establishing
themselves as working fashion designer’s post-graduation. As participants were identified,
snowball sampling (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016) was used to identify additional study participants.
Eight participants were interviewed for this study.
Instrumentation
The research questions this study seeks to answer required information from the lived
experiences of women who have worked in the fashion industry. Social role theory which
explains the factors that contribute to the structural organization of social roles, evolved
differences and psychological factors closely aligns with the questions as it provides
explanations into the lived experiences of women. In keeping with the examination of lived
experiences the interview protocol used for this study was a peer-reviewed semi-structured
interview format with a minimum of 12 questions asked of each participant. Appendix A
presents the interview protocol. The questions were designed to cover the six Patton question
types (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016): Experience and behavior, opinion, and values, feeling,
knowledge, sensory, and background/demographic. A semi-structured approach was selected to
allow for the flexibility needed in qualitative research while still allowing for a way to get the
specific information required from all participants (Johnson & Christensen, 2014; Merriam &
Tisdell, 2016).
Data Collection Procedures
Participants were contacted using social media, email, or phone to schedule one on one
interviews with the researcher. Each interview was scheduled for 1 hour with the expectation that
41

the interview would last approximately 45–60 minutes including the time required for participant
consent. Interviews took place over Zoom, with audio and video recorded for the session. To
prevent recording without consent the recording feature was turned off at the start of the meeting
and used only after informed consent has been obtained by the interviewer. Using Zoom will
provide some needed features of accessibility, convenience, and audio/video/ transcription
capability (Burkholder et al., 2020). A written transcript was collected using Zoom. The
transcript was converted from the VTT format into a word document to protect the identity of the
participants and their names were removed on the document version of the Zoom transcript. To
ensure ethical practices the interviews were scheduled after the study received IRB approval.
Data Analysis
The individual interviews were transcribed during the interview using existing
technology available on Zoom and a paid online transcription service. The transcriptions are
stored as a password protected VTT file on cloud storage. The VTT files have been transferred
into word documents which are stored as password protected files. The files have been edited for
clarity and remove the names and any identifying information of the interview participants. The
transcripts were sent to participants for member checking (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016) to ensure
participants felt their ideas were accurately captured.
Upon completion of member checking an eight-step coding process outlined by Creswell
and Creswell (2018) was used. The first step was a careful reading of the transcriptions, during
which note taking strategies were used to track ideas. The second step was a careful read of
several documents with reflection and notetaking centered on the underlying meaning not the
substance. The third step was to generate a list of topical themes identified in the transcripts and
to sort these topics into larger categories around major, minor, and unique themes. The fourth
42

step was to code the transcripts with thematic abbreviations and then to analyze the coding for
new categories and themes. The fifth step was to translate and condense the topical themes into
categories using mind maps and charts to show relationships. The sixth step was to assign an
abbreviation for each category. The seventh step was to organize the material into each category
and perform a preliminary analysis. The eighth step was to recode the existing data (Creswell &
Creswell, 2018).
Credibility and Trustworthiness
Social role expectations lead women to identify with roles that confirm communal
behaviors and expectations of motherhood; these expectations lead to beliefs held by individuals
who then seek out confirmation for those beliefs (Eagly, 1987). The processes used in the
interviews for this study including triangulation, member checks and adequate engagement in the
data collection process contributed to the credibility and trustworthiness of the findings. The
design of the study created a rich descriptive data set. The interview data was collected in three
diverse ways (video, audio, and text) which allowed for triangulation of the data to increase
internal validity of the findings (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Triangulation was also used in the
form of interviews and peer review to provide additional data (triangulation) on what the
interviewees said.
Semi structured interviews were used to allow for appropriate follow-up questions that
enhance the data collection through additional descriptions and insights that would not be
possible in a structured interview. The interview protocol was peer reviewed, pilot tested, and
modified to incorporate peer feedback. Member checks where participants are invited to give
feedback on the findings were also used to increase the internal validity or credibility of the
study (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The initial approach was to obtain eight interviews after which
43

interviewing continued until a point of saturation was reached for data collection. Adequate
engagement in data collection by conducting eight one on one interviews was also used to ensure
the credibility of the study (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The personal nature of the study
contributes to transferability not being strong in this study.
Ethics
Ethical issues were considered throughout the data collection and analysis processes. The
research followed approved institutional review board (IRB) procedures for ethical research
conduct. Data for the study was only gathered after IRB approval was received. Emphasis was
placed on the voluntary nature of the study and coercion was not used when recruiting
participants. Informed consent was obtained prior to the start of each interview.
Merriam and Tisdell (2016) presented ethical dilemmas that may arise for researchers
conducting in-depth qualitative interviews as private thoughts or experiences may be elicited
from the participants. To protect participant confidentiality interview data including names,
identities, and demographic information was stored using password protection and all data will
be destroyed at the conclusion of the study. Protocols were used to ensure the anonymity of the
participants including not collecting names and email addresses. De-identification procedures
were also used to remove or change the names of participants on any papers or publications that
have been or will be created using data from the study.

44

Chapter Four: Findings
The purpose of this study was to understand how gender bias in the fashion industry is
experienced by female fashion design alumnae who graduated from fashion design programs at
schools affiliated with AICAD. The previous chapter outlined the research methodologies. This
chapter presents the study findings. It begins with a description of the study participants and is
followed by the findings for each research question which are presented in sections organized by
the conceptual framework. The chapter wraps up with a synthesized discussion of the findings
related to the research questions. Social role theory (Eagly, 1987) provided the conceptual
framework used to examine how gendered expectations in the feminized fashion industry affect
the career paths of female alumnae. The conceptual framework supplied the characteristics of
psychological factors, social roles, and evolved differences (Eagly & Wood,1999) as an
organizing structure for this study’s investigation of the experiences and effects of gender bias in
the fashion industry. The framework also focused on the impact of culture in how gender
expectations are shaped and communicated.
Participants
Eight female alumnae who had received a BFA degree from colleges that are part of the
AICAD network were interviewed over Zoom during Fall 2021. Purposive sampling was used to
identify 20 potential participants for the study. Four additional potential participants indicated
willingness to participate in the study but failed to schedule an interview when invited.
Pseudonyms were used to protect the privacy of the participants. Table 1 provides information
on the participants’ positionalities including the year they graduated, their race/ethnicity, position
in the fashion industry, and current employment status within the fashion industry.
45

Table 1
Participant Information
Pseudonym Year
graduated
Race/ethnicity Experience Currently employed in
fashion industry
Julia 2001 Latina/White Designer, educator Yes, self
Catherine 2015 Asian/White Designer, educator No
Agnes 2014 Latina Designer Yes
Victoria 2012 White Designer, educator Yes, self
Monica 2012 White Designer Yes
Sarah 2006 White Designer, production No
Helena 2014 Asian Designer Yes
Irene 2006 White Designer Yes

Findings Research Question 1
All of the women interviewed for this study recalled experiences with bias and career
expectations placed on them because of their gender. The following question, informed by social
role theory, was used to guide the research in order to gain further insight into how gender bias is
manifested within the fashion industry: How is gender bias evident within the fashion industry?
The study participants reported their individual treatment, expectations, and experiences
contained evidence of gender bias in the fashion industry. In examining the study responses,
three themes emerged that correspond to Research Question 1 and the conceptual framework.
The first theme of keeping up appearances was found to correspond with psychological factors.
The second theme of benevolent paternalism was found to correspond with social roles. The
third theme of the ideal woman was found to correspone with evolved differences. Table 2
presents the data themes from the findings related to the first research question and details the
alignment with the conceptual framework of psychological factors, social roles, and evolved
differences.

46

Table 2
Evidence of Gender Bias
Themes Explanation Examples
Psychological factors:
keeping up appearances
Treatment by others based
on gender

Comments and/or treatment based
on appearance, not being taken
seriously, leadership, support
from women, lack of support for
mothers

Social roles: benevolent
paternalism
Behavioral expectations
based on gender

Only woman in the room when
decisions are made, expectation
of service, gay men presented as
exemplars, females working
harder than male colleagues,
female dominant peer groups,
support given to underperforming
male colleagues, paternalism

Evolved differences: the
ideal woman
Physical experiences of
gender
Motherhood, body size, physical
attributes

Psychological Factors: Keeping Up Appearances
The first theme generated from Research Question 1 was psychological factors defined as
treatment by others based on gender. In analyzing the data themes of perceived abilities, the
male gaze, and female support were determined to relate to the psychological factors associated
with physical appearance. During the interviews participants directly referenced their own
experiences with gender bias related to organizational authority and perceived leadership
capacity. Catherine, Victoria, Agnes, Helena, Monica, Irene, and Sarah considered how their
ideas were not accepted as the final word even when they held positions of power. Victoria who
owns and operates a womenswear label established in 2012 expressed how this bias was
communicated by her family who ask questions such as “Is this a thing? Is this a hobby? Is this
47

your job? Oh, but you just do it when you feel like it, right?” Victoria, Catherine, and Helena
provided examples of their work and opinions not being valued. Catherine recalled how she was
not given a voice “Everything that I’d say they need to have spoken out of the mouth of one of
my male sales reps in order for them to take it as truth.” Agnes and Catherine noted lowered
expectations for females such as being assigned simpler tasks with less responsibility. Agnes
framed this in terms of “Yeah. I will say that there is more lenience towards females in the
industry.” The women each expressed during their interviews that their contributions to the labels
they worked for were not taken as seriously as their male peers and that they were not perceived
as capable leaders.
Lowered expectations reflecting an internalization of gender bias were displayed in how
participants communicated their perceived abilities; with most framing their skills around
technical execution and downplaying personal creative vision. Catherine, Julia, Irene, and Sarah
referenced their perceived abilities around flexibility and problem solving excluding mention of
their own creativity. When referencing their skills, female designers did not feel the same level of
comfort with menswear that male designers had with womenswear. Catherine, the only
menswear designer interviewed, recalled how she was treated in the industry “our buyers would
not want to shake my hand or would very much poo-poo the fact that I was the designer.”
Appendix B presents quotes regarding perceptions of the participants’ abilities by themselves and
others.
Participants described how female gender identity and the perception of skill was filtered
through a masculine understanding of femininity referred to as the male gaze. Male designers
lacked the knowledge of how clothes needed to function, this expectation was transferred to
female designers as well. Monica reflected on her time working with two well-known male
48

designers “they don’t know how we go to the bathroom, or they don’t know where a zipper
actually goes.” She continued by adding that she had to figure out fit issues like needed seams
that would allow a woman to use the restroom without the designer present instead of providing
fitting notes or immediately solving the problem. She also described how the male gaze limited
female movement comparing the garments to a type of bondage,
His fetishism of restraint and bondage, whether it be on men or women. But bondage I
mean in the sense of not like straps and just clothing as structure. Kind of like that marble
statue that you’re in, that you become with clothing.
Helena expressed constraints around creative freedom “I’ve been working in fashion for
7 years and I don’t feel like I’ve ever really designed anything.” Catherine recounted an
experience with the male gaze recalling an incident at a trade show where a buyer came into her
booth and made “these really weird comments about what I look like” telling her how “unique
and exotic she looked” and resisting her efforts to explain the current collection. “He just had no
interest in hearing any of the business stuff from me, you know. He’s like, you can stay for the
meeting. I don’t mind looking at you.” These scenarios illustrate how women’s experiences and
understanding of their own gender are devalued and reframed to satisfy the male gaze. Appendix
C presents additional quotes around the theme of The Male Gaze
Another facet of the male gaze was found in a lack of female support around career
advancement. The lack of support was not presented as outright sabotage, but was more nuanced,
framed around the lack of female leaders with an ability to provide opportunities for career
advancement. Monica stated that a CEO who helped her career “left after a year.” Helena, who
reflected on her inability to make any design decisions, described her boss as “controlling …
she’s on the line if we don’t do a good job.” Helena also described scenarios where preferential
49

treatment was given to gay men. One scenario she recounted was her former female manager
constantly talking about “a gay guy” who was her favorite assistant. Another scenario Helena
recalled working with a close friend who was a gay man who moved up in the fashion industry
despite displaying behaviors that would get female designers fired. She also noted the lack of
male co-workers did not lessen the bias “I haven’t had any guys work at my new place. So it’s
just also my old manager talking about her favorite gay assistant.”
Gender role expectations were unique for each company, yet a gender imbalance
persisted throughout each of the different organizations. As the owner of a womenswear label
Victoria observed a gender imbalance in the different interactions she has had with mostly male
manufacturers and factory owners.
Like vendors, and factory owners, and stuff like that, there’s more of a tilt towards
masculine, but everyone I consider a colleague, or a cohort, or a peer that I speak with
regularly, or have any interaction with is very, very predominantly female.
Agnes expressed a similar gender imbalance within her own company noting that men
were primarly in digital heavy jobs such as graphic design.
I have two male coworkers, but they do more of the tech part, like more of doing graphic
design or just doing more intricate detailing and stuff like that, while the females are
more into design.
Helena described different expectations given to a male colleague “he was late every day.
And like did all of these things that I think if I did, I would’ve gotten in way more trouble.”
These scenarios indicate how gendered expectations are reinforced by those working within the
industry siloing employees into different roles based on perceived ability organized around
gender. The gendered division of labor experienced by participants was not overwhelmingly
50

negative yet a common theme emerged around behavioral expectations for female designers.
Appendix D provides examples of quotes around participants perceptions of female support.
Social Roles: Benevolent Paternalism
Social roles related to Research Question 1 were defined as the behavioral expectations
placed on women based on gender. In analyzing the data, themes of the male genius and
networking were determined to relate to social role expectations driven by an attitude of
benevolent paternalism. Six participants shared their direct experiences with gender bias.
Victoria introduced the phrase “benevolent paternalism” when describing gender bias.
Recounting her experiences working with predominantly male Eastern European factory
workers, she communicated the feeling of not being taken seriously and the low expectations that
the workers expressed regarding her success in the industry. Irene recounted a similar experience
when telling people she planned to pursue fashion design “I definitely remember folks giving me
a once-over and being like, ‘Huh. Fashion. Okay. Well, good luck with that.’”
Sarah observed the additional resources provided to male designers throughout her
career. She recalled working with a brand who was in the CFDA incubator and how part of the
designers success could be attributed to “a lot of financial backing from his significant other and
their family.” She also recalled a well known company where the designer’s son-in-law was
“grandfathered into the company” as soon as he married. She detailed the downsides of this
transition describing the lack of accountability, “So there’s no board or anyone to suss out
anything.” She went on to explain the voltatility of this scenario, recounting how the son-in-law
would change the direction if he was upset with how things were going “he was constantly
changing the target for each of the executive teams so the executive team would be constantly
trying to play catch up.” The result of this situation was a CEO who was regularly disappointed
51

with how things were going which created a chaotic stressful working environment for the
executive board and their teams.
Victoria, Julia, Catherine, Helena, Irene, and Sarah presented another side to the theme of
benevolent paternalism, observing how networking benefitted male designers. Victoria recalled
her time in school as one where she was taken seriously recalling “90% of my department was
women, you just had to look outside the industry and see 90% of the head designers at the head
design houses as being men, and be like, Hm. Interesting. How did this happen?” Julia built on
this perception while lamenting that schools trained students to work in the industry rather than
to become entrepreneurs.
I feel like it would be complementary to have some kind of fashion business course that
teaches you a little bit more. But I don’t think that they are really training people to be
entrepreneurs, they’re training people to work in the fashion industry.
Sarah followed up on these thoughts stating her need to make a living caused her to
“broaden my scope of things beyond the design aspect. That led me into production and product
development.” Helena spoke directly to the lack of networking opportunities provided to
students. Irene and Victoria mentioned positive networking experiences they have experienced
throughout their careers. Victoria stated that in contrast to the vendors and factory owners,
everyone she considered “a colleague, or a cohort, or a peer that I speak with regularly, or have
any interaction with is very, very predominantly female.” Irene added to this sentiment recalling
that her time at school “provided me with a network of people, first and foremost, that have
really helped me throughout my career.” Treatment of female designers influenced by
benevolent paternalism reinforced gender role expectations by centering the male gender as the
52

successful ideal saddling female designers with lower expectations for success. Appendix E
presents additional quotes to elaborate on the theme of benevolent paternalism.
Evolved Differences: The Ideal Woman
Evolved differences connected to Research Question 1 were defined as physical
experiences of gender. In analyzing the data themes of motherhood, age and appearance were
determined to relate to idealized gender expectations. Participants indicated pressure from
industry leaders and peers to conform to an ideal woman, identified as the target customer for
many brands, as childless, attractive, young, slim, and White. This idealized woman was not
specifically stated by any one participant but instead articulated by all participants when their
identities fell outside these ideals.
The four non-White participants all framed their race by centering a White identity
providing descriptors such as “my skin is brown” or “being not fully White.” Helena, Agnes,
Catherine, and Sarah recounted experiences with racism at work where they felt stereotyped into
race-based expectations or performance outcomes. Catherine recalled comments on her mixed
ethnicity “oh Japanese and German, no wonder you’re so good at your job.” Sarah noted that
within her former company “they call the liner a nude color. … It’s a nude color for a White
woman.” Helena provided several examples, stating that colleagues have told her “We’re not
moving up because we’re Asian.” She also recalled “a little White girl” who went from being her
assistant to “the main boss’s right hand” stating that the woman will “still ask me for help even
though she’s … higher than me now.” Reflecting on her feeling about this Helena stated, “I was
never even like offered this, which I don’t want the position, but it’s just weird because there are
other people in the office too that like never got that chance.” She recounted another experience
with a White woman who was hired as an assistant designer,
53

but she was a little bit older. This was her first job in fashion, and immediately became
like associate and then designer like in less than a year. And I don’t understand how,
because she wasn’t even good, and then she quit.
Building on the theme Helena described the woman’s appeal as the company liking her
“to be the face of the brand. So, they made her the designer because she like looked the part.”
Expressing her thoughts on this situation “it just made me think. Nothing directly has happened
to me, but when people say those things, I’m like, oh yeah, how come they got those chances
faster than we did?” Agnes recalled interviewing for a job and observing the company “had a
certain race in their workplace.” Which she felt would make her “stand out.” Reflecting on how
her race influenced this experience she stated “I did go through the interview process, but I never
got hired. I’m pretty sure maybe that’s what it was, but who knows? You never know until
someone tells you or asks you.”
Four participants stated experiences aligned to expectations around an idealized
appearance. Helena communicated the importance of being attractive when recounting her initial
interest in the fashion industry “I realized I was a girl and pretty. I was like, oh, this can be fun.”
Agnes communicated difficulties around being plus size and having “insecurity of not being able
to connect with a brand because of that.” Irene recalled that being a different size and shape than
the typical consumer, “I did a lot of my own making of clothes and alterations.” She also
commented, “I work in swimwear, so, of course, it’s not a race but a body bias.” Monica also
communicated a size bias triggered by the uniform requirements in her company which did not
make women’s clothing at the time, “it was difficult because I wasn’t sample size. … I didn’t get
the pretty dresses.” Victoria observed the differences of treatment by men based on age and size,
noting that a former boss received help from men because “she’s someone who is kind of small
54

in stature … and was on the younger side as well.” When asked about the age of her current
boss Helena commented on the expectations for women in the fashion industry to look young
“It’s so hard to tell. … Like is she 50 something? Like people in fashion tend to take care of
themselves.”
Expanding on the idealizations of youth, participants reflected on a lack of information
about sustainable career paths for young women. Helena plainly stated, “When I was younger, I
didn’t know anything.” Victoria noted that she received favorable treatment from men in the
fashion industry “when I was younger, when I was like 20.” Sarah communicated how her career
goals changed as she gained knowledge of the industry. When she was younger, she was enticed
to work for “labels that were doing runway and more gown-related, more high-end luxury
product.” She made these decisions because it “felt a comfortable space for me to build my
career on. Looking at it now, it’s such a niche market that is very unique and unknown unless
you’re working in New York specifically for luxury design houses.” She commented that these
decisions have not helped her long-term career. “Now, when I’m trying to broaden my scope for
brands that are bigger, that doesn’t translate as well in a way.” Reflecting on her career Sarah
observed a lack of strong career goals when she first started “I was just riding the train of where
it was going, and I really wanted to work [at well-known labels]. And from there, I don’t think I
thought much beyond where that was going to lead.” She expanded further on this narrative
“When I look at women who are older in the industry, there’s not many. They all phase out at a
certain point.” These scenarios indicate how women’s experiences of discrimination are based on
an idealized woman filtered through the male gaze.
55

Discussion Research Question 1
Findings around this research question indicate the numerous ways gender bias is
experienced by female designers. All participants recounted experiencing some form of bias
related to their gender. Non-White participants also added in experiences with racial bias.
Overall, eight of eight women experienced bias related to how their identities misaligned to a
female ideal presented by many brands as their target customer. In agreement with current
literature, women framed their skills and identities around the archetype of a White, male,
creative genius, lowering their own expectations for creativity instead framing their skills around
problem solving and working out details. The treatment received by the women based on their
gender pigeonholed them into roles with expectations of service and support. In turn, the
participants successful experiences with supporting roles led to an identification with the skills
necessary for supporting roles such as problem solving and technical skills. This moved the
women further away from realizing their own creative skills and vision.
Findings Research Question 2
Gender bias affects women’s beliefs about themselves, the roles they fill, and how they
experience motherhood. The following question, informed by social role theory, was used to
guide the research in order to gain further insight into how gender bias affects female designers
within the fashion industry: How does the reinforcement of gender bias affect alumnae behavior?
Study participants recounted behaviors they exhibited related to gender biase. Upon
examination of the behaviors three themes emerged that addressed Research Question 2: the
male genius, the friendly servant, and motherhood myths. Table 3 offers a visual for the themes
of the findings related to the second research question and details themetic alignment with the
conceptual framework.
56

Table 3
Effect of Gender Bias
Element Explanation Examples
Psychological factors: the
male genius
Emotions, feelings, or beliefs
because of treatment by
others based on gender

Constantly feeling a need to prove
oneself, pressure to appear a
certain way, exhaustion,
devaluing of work

Social Roles: the friendly
servant
Roles filled because of
behavioral expectations
based on gender

Note taking, service, avoiding
self-promotion, wearing
makeup, sisterhood, stagnation

Evolved differences:
motherhood myths
Experiences that result from
physical expressions of
gender
Maternity leave, stepping away
from career, motherhood is
devalued, paternalism

Psychological Factors: The Male Genius
Psychological factors corresponding with Research Question 2 were defined as emotions,
feelings, or beliefs because of treatment by others based on gender. The findings for these
factors concur with current literature discussed in Chapter 2 which attributes creativity to the
male gender reinforcing the male genius archetype found in art history curriculum. In analyzing
the data, themes of communal behaviors, agency, and living up to expectations were determined
to relate to the psychological factors around gendered creativity. Reflecting on the centering of a
male identity as the ideal creative genius Victora discussed male designers being “more popular”
with the media when using traditional feminine handicrafts such as quilts. Commenting that
women’s design work using traditional handicrafts aligned with their gender was often seen as
less innovative even when outcomes were similar. She gave an example of a rapper who wore a
quilted outfit to a high profile fashion event, “A$AP Rocky wore a quilt on the red-carpet last
57

night that was made by a male quilter for a male designer, and it was really celebrated.” Victoria
continued this train of thought
I thought it was cool, but it is a little bit ridiculous that this handicraft that has been done
by women for millennia is more celebrated when it’s being created, or worn, by a man. If
it was the first time I had ever seen that happening, I might have been a little more
annoyed, but it’s not the first time.
Monica stated that while working with male designers’ part of her job was to help the
opposite sex understand how women’s wear must conform to the female anatomy and
functionality. Julia expressed similar sentiments “it’s a little bit strange how glorified some of
the male designers are versus the women designers.” She also conveyed that women’s firsthand
experiences with clothing leads them to design more personal collections for other women.
Expressed having these feelings throughout her career. Honing in on the theme of the male
genius Julia articulated how the intersectionality of race and gender can affect perceptions of
talent communicating that the biases work in favor of the White male.
Half of the participants noted how their family support enabled them to survive the
fashion industry. Agnes stated that her parents “helped her out a lot.” Their support was financial
but also guiding, encouraging her to do something she loved “my parents, they’re like, you need
to get a job that you’re going to earn money in. So, their mindset was like, is this something that
you want, that you love?” Helena remarked that her mom took out loans to help pay for her
education. Julia explained how family support allowed her to pursue a career in the fashion
industry, “There is no way I would have been able to pursue all of my dreams and do all of the
crazy things that I’ve done without the support of my family.” She attributed most of her
58

accomplishments to the support that she received from her parents. Catherine communicated a
similar sentiment around her decision to quit her job.
Sarah touched on industry treatment of women “What I tell my husband is, that for an
industry that’s predominantly women, they don’t invest in women in any way financially.” She
added that most companies she worked for offered “no additional benefits besides your salary,
maybe health insurance” looking back she felt she “spent most of my twenties working and not
investing in myself.” Expanding on this further she explained “now that I’m getting older and
you see that I’ve lost 10 years of investment … it’s kind of like, what was I doing? Why was I
taking those jobs that weren’t really valuing me?” For Sarah this treatment continued during
COVID when she had her second child. She recalled a few months after she gave birth “the
company called me back conveniently at the end of what would’ve been my maternity leave, that
was completely unpaid, is when they wanted me back.” Asked to explain how she felt about this
she stated “I was like, how convenient? You got out of paying my maternity leave and now you
want me to come back in a rush.”
In contrast to communal expectations placed on women, Julia, Agnes, Irene, Helena, and
Monica articulated a desire for more self-direction and self-reliance within their career paths.
Monica expressed the value of having this type of agency during her undergraduate education
“having the open studios allowing for the cross-pollination of at least ideas and being able to
hear other people’s critiques and different disciplines or see what different disciplines were
doing was really impactful.” Agnes expressed a similar sentiment about the importance of
exposure to different computer, technology, and digital skills during her undergrad experience.
These feelings of agency related to identity and contributed to the career path choices of the
study participants.
59

The relationship between identity and perceived agency was articulated by Julia, Sarah,
Irene, Helena, and Agnes. Julia expressed how a sense of agency was important to her when
choosing fashion design as a career path, “My lifelong dream and career goals are the exact same
that they were when I was about 7 years old, which is to have a somewhat successful business,
being creative and doing what I love to do.” She relayed a story about her choice to study fashion
design while at junior college. At the time the college was staging a fashion show, Julia
explained that she would rather see the show than study which solidified her fashion design
career choice. Sarah shared similar thoughts observing that her identity allowed her choices that
may not have been available otherwise. When reflecting on her choice to attend fashion school
out of state “they were easy decisions to make because I was given those opportunities. Where if
I were of a different race or class, those decisions would not have been as easy.” Irene also
chose to study fashion due to perceptions of being able to chart her own path.
I chose a career in the fashion industry or to pursue it because I felt like there were a lot
of avenues that led off of that general bit of education, that felt like I would be able to
kind of choose where my interests were and make my own path based on that one piece
of education.
Following up on this Irene stated “my goals were to figure out how to navigate the
industry because there was so much of it that I was not interested in participating in.” Julia added
to this theme noting that she turned down corporate fashion jobs,
because I felt like they were going to take advantage of me and basically work me down
to the bone and then toss me out. I didn’t really think that I would be appreciated for my
work or for my worth or that it would be an opportunity for climbing up a ladder of some
kind.
60

Ultimately, she chose not to pursue a corporate career path because “I wanted to give a
different example and do something differently and show that I am worth more.” Helena stated
the importance of agency when thinking about her future career, “I know that’s one thing that I
want is to have a say instead of just being a middleman. Like I want it to be mine, but I don’t
know if I want to run my own company.” Agnes expressed a similar sentiment regarding her
future career “It’s good to be in the industry working for someone, but eventually in my mindset,
I kind of want to work for myself.” While she understood the importance of agency, Helena also
referenced a lack of power, control, and ownership she experienced regarding career growth.
Sarah commented on the lack of agency she felt regarding her career goals due to the location
restraints of the fashion industry “With working in fashion, I feel you’re bound to being in Los
Angeles or New York. And then beyond that, there’s very few opportunities outside of those
locations.” She lamented a lack of information that influenced her pessimistic views on her
career trajectory.
Participants expressed experiences around pressure to live up to expectations and career
advancement. Julia described some of the pressures created for women when a White male is
idealized, and the work produced by those outside the dominant culture is devalued. She
described how her positionality has affected her career “All I can say is that I think the doors
would probably have been open more if there weren’t specific biases attached to being a brown
immigrant woman.” Monica recalled working or going to school 7 days a week to get into the
profession which took a heavy emotional toll on her.
I was pretty much working and doing school 7 days a week. So, it was pretty much trying
to get away from waitressing and get into a professional role, and that was, emotionally
and kind on internally, it was hard. It was a hard transition.
61

Catherine explained how she felt the constant need to prove her abilities, expending
endless effort to keep up with appearance expectations to hold on to her job. She explained the
daily struggle of needing to hold meetings at a certain time of day so there would be “enough
time to change out of my meeting clothes into more comfortable clothes” since her day-to-day
activities also required meeting with different contractors. Reflecting on this situation she stated,
“the cumulative effect of that was just very physically exhausting.” The label she was working
for was acquired by a larger brand which led to downsizing and an increased workload.
Catherine explained her work week as 80 hours pretty much 7 days a week doing multiple jobs
that were not filled by the new organization. Realizing she was approaching burnout Catherine
approached the CEO and COO about hiring an assistant to help her out. Their response was “No,
you’re doing great. Really, we can only afford to have you until we hit this much, and there was
no way we were going to get there in even the next 3 years.” Feeling the goal was unrealistic she
decided to quit.
Sarah articulated the pressures placed on women leaders in the fashion industry. “The last
company I was at, the CEO was male and then all the top executives were female in each
department, but the way that he spoke with them was horrendous.” She recalled the work
environment being toxic, recounting that during boardroom meetings the CEO would spend half
the meeting “swearing at everyone, telling them that their performance is not good. It’s like, I
don’t want you to have alliances with each other. I want you to rat each other out.” Sarah stated
that while she never saw the CEO fire anyone, she witnessed him berate and cut women down to
the point of crumbling into tears. Sarah felt that this would not have happened with an all-male
executive team. When asked if the behavior trickled down, she recalled that some of the
executives would take it out on their teams but that her boss “would turn around and try to be as
62

positive with us as possible because that was not who she was and she didn’t want that to spill
into our team.” Sarah continued “She shielded her team from that crazy screaming” however
there was not much privacy in the office so she and her co-workers could hear the CEO telling
people ‘Get the fuck up and leave this meeting,’ repeatedly over and over.” She explained that
“when the person thinks that he’s joking, and he is not joking. It’s pretty rough for a Tuesday
morning.” She noted that a lot of her team stayed at the company for a long time because ‘She
herself was a good team leader’, but I felt she didn’t foster growth within the team.” The
pressures female designers experienced reinforced gender role expectations by centering the
male genius. Appendix F presents quotes around the theme of the male genius
Social Roles: The Friendly Servant
Social roles related to Research Question 2 were defined as roles filled because of
behavioral expectations based on gender. In analyzing the data, themes of entrepreneurship,
leadership, appearance, creativity and environment were determined to relate to the social roles
assigned around expected behavior. Participants note they were expected to take on service roles
within the fashion industry. Catherine commented that even as a designer “some of our vendors
would ask me to get them a drink, hospitality type things.”
Becoming an entrepreneur was a shared goal expressed by 75% of the study participants.
Julia recalled her lifelong dream as being entrepreneurial. “As long as I can remember, when I
was a kid, I used to say I wanted to be an inventor.” Catherine expressed a similar sentiment
recalling her initial job search after graduating college “I was definitely looking at smaller
companies, because ultimately I would still like to be able to start my own line.” Agnes also
expressed a desire to start her own line “another goal is to eventually start my own … hopefully
small brand, but it’s a process.”
63

Irene expressed a desire to do her own thing but was hesitant about starting a brand,
instead she was “hopeful that there is something out there in this field or whatever that I could
navigate to, that would be fulfilling and beneficial.” Adding onto this she described her dream
job as not something that she could search and apply for but instead something that “would be a
careful crafting of something that may not have a specific name.” Sarah and Victoria both
worked for designers who started their own labels and initially both felt no desire to follow that
path. Sarah expressed the difficulty of this career path “Watching him, grind it out and he’s still
grinding it out and that’s 10 years later, it’s excruciating. It takes every ounce of you.” Both
women changed their minds. Victoria started her own brand after graduating from fashion school
and Sarah noted that she would be interested in doing it “on a much, much smaller scale.”
While participants had entrepreneurial goals, they also touched on sustainability and the
importance of creating sustainable fashion reflecting a more communal approach to fashion
shaped by gender role expectations. Reflecting on the long-term effects of the COVID-19
pandemic Julia stated
I really think that we’ve reached the point where it’s now hip to talk about sustainability,
it’s no longer a nauseating subject. … I think now it’s a subject that is such a huge part of
everyone’s desire to change.
Catherine echoed this theme while reflecting on her desire to start her own business. I’m
also aware of how much waste this industry creates as well and trying to be able to figure out
how to be able to do that in a way that I don’t feel like I’m putting something into the world
that’s just going to be thrown away or create a whole lot of pollution and creating it and all of
that. Those sorts of decisions do cost even more money, because the better processes are usually
at smaller places. Irene stated her own personal dilemma around designing “my personal issue
64

with that is just the fact that I am just continuously making stuff. So, I think that’s where I’m
trying to reevaluate.”
Regarding how physical appearance affected behavior, Julia felt that racial bias “holds
people like me back a little bit.” Agnes expanded on this theme, explaining that she changed
career paths into footwear because “I am plus size. … I have that insecurity of not being able to
connect with a brand because of that.” Irene and Helena both mentioned wanting to have
clothing created just for them. Irene, who has trouble finding clothes that fit properly, recalled
“wanting to be an individual and have something that fit me, my body.” Helena recalled going
into fashion with the desire to make clothes “for myself so that I can make it perfect for me.”
Participants discussed how their past treatment in the industry affected their present
behavior. Catherine reflected on getting burned out, quitting, and then looking for a new job
explaining that she
waited a few months to just rest, because I didn’t realize until I got home how physically
exhausted I was. Then I started to look a little bit, but just found myself being very picky
about places that I wanted to apply, just because I didn’t want to jump into a similar
situation where I was going to be just spread until I couldn’t go anymore.
She summarized her feeling around looking for a job “do I really want to put up with all
that bullshit? I don’t know.” Despite their experiences with bias in the fashion industry, the
women interviewed displayed resilience and optimism as they spoke about their careers.
Reflecting on future career options Julia was optimistic. She stated, “I think that small designers
like me have an actual chance now to gather a following.” She explained feeling that she would
not be discriminated against for being “a woman or an immigrant” noting that people are “a lot
more willing to invest and support a small designer.” In general, she communicated feeling more
65

optimistic because consumers “have a very different approach with what they find interesting in
fashion. And it will balance things out a little bit and give the whole fashion world a greater
chance at doing things the right way.” Julia continued her thoughts on this subject describing the
changes she has witnessed throughout her career. She stated that when she was a new designer
the most celebrated designers “were actually men doing women’s wear.” Describing her
thoughts on this she recounted finding it “a little bit strange because women actually get to
experience the clothing that they’re wearing firsthand and there’s this really personal
connection.” She related her optimism to understanding “that has changed, and we have brilliant,
successful women designers who are becoming more and more recognized for their work
nowadays.”
Agnes and Sarah both felt that fashion curriculum could benefit from more education on
career and technical skills. Agnes noted that male designers are assigned more technical tasks
and indicated a desire for more technical education in her undergraduate experience. Sarah stated
I think that would be something that I would, if I was a teacher, try to instill in my
students that, yes, you have to work hard and prove yourself and do the work when you
start out, but you also have to realize that you need to make money and have a company
that values you as an employee.
Adding onto this recommendation Sarah stated “I feel when you’re coming out of school
with a design degree, you don’t really think of that stuff. I mean, I didn’t.” The common theme
of friendly servant emerged around behavioral expectations for female designers.
Evolved Differences: Motherhood Myths
Evolved differences related to Research Question 2 were defined as experiences that
result from physical expressions of gender. In analyzing the data, themes of motherhood and
66

gender were determined to relate to the evolved differences assigned to women because they are
mothers. Monica and Sarah both mentioned challenges experienced with being a mother and
working in the fashion industry. Monica noted her hectic schedule recalling that after maternity
leave, she “went back to work and pumped three times a day. Saw my baby awake maybe one
hour a day after that.” Monica described how this challenging experience influenced her to
ultimately give up her career in the fashion industry and move overseas to support her husband’s
career advancement.
Sarah provided an in-depth narrative of her experience around motherhood. She
expressed feeling that “being a woman is not valued. Like having a family is now an issue in the
work life.” She explained “When I announced I was pregnant, it’s celebrated like, ‘Yeah,
congratulations,’ but when you’re going to fill out all your paperwork with HR, it’s called a
disability.” She also expressed how financial constraints have prevented her from changing
careers. She said,
the financial component also plays back into things where I need to make money to help
support the family. So as much as it would be great to reinvent myself in a new career
path right now, financially I can’t take the hit. I have to.
The COVID-19 pandemic was difficult for Sarah, “I was pregnant during the pandemic. I
was furloughed and my furlough kept getting extended and extended.” Although her company
did not address her maternity leave, she commented “They’re not going to bring me back to then
pay my maternity leave. I know it’s completely illegal, but they won’t do it, but they cannot
guise it under the threat of a pandemic now.” At the same time, she was unable to look for
another job. “I can’t really look for other work because I am going to have to disclose that I’m
pregnant and no one’s going to want to hire me at 6, 7, 8 months pregnant.” Recounting her
67

feelings during 2020, “it felt like a very complicated time trying to figure out the career path last
year.” When her boss called her to offer her the job back her boss “implied that now that I have
two children that I obviously am not coming back to work. And I was like, ‘At what point did I
ever just say that?’ That was assumed by her.” Sarah wanted to return to work but “they wanted
to bring me back but cut my salary a certain percentage. And at that percentage, I could no
longer afford childcare for my two children.” Due to these budget constraints Sarah was not able
to return to work, but she was quickly replaced. Retelling the experience Sarah stated “when
things fell apart for me coming back, that was on New Year’s Eve. And then by the next Monday
after New Year’s, they already had someone in my position.”
Sarah continued to explain how motherhood has impacted her job hunt. “I’ve been
interviewing and a lot of the companies that I’ve gotten interviews with, they want to pay, it
seems like below market pay for the job that they’re posting.” Having two kids requires her to
maintain “a certain salary in order to have the kids in daycare care for it to balance out. It’s not
as simple anymore as me just getting a job and going to work and paying rent.” This situation
has led her to “walk away from opportunities or jobs that I’ve interviewed for this last year that
may have sounded interesting in terms of the company or just different opportunities, but the
salary wasn’t to where I needed it to be.” Explaining her frustration with this situation she noted
“it’s one of those things where when you’re interviewing you obviously can’t ask. … Until it
gets to the end and you’re like, ‘Oh, we just wasted each other’s time on this.’” These scenarios
evidence gendered discrimination based on the motherhood myths.
Discussion Research Question 2
Female designers experience distress and exhibit negative attitudes and behaviors
triggered by gender bias in their career industry. The ongoing inequity in the fashion industry
68

impacted the designers’ beliefs about themselves, the roles they fill, and their views on
motherhood. Study participants expressed being annoyed by the male genius archetype that
devalues female creative work. The gendered role expectations placed on female designers
adversely affects their views on entrepreneurship, leadership, appearance, creativity, and
environment in the fashion industry. The designers’ learned to rely on family support to maintain
their career paths and had to discover their resiliency through personal and social relationships to
navigate the overwhelming challenges within the industry. The women interviewed for this study
who no longer work in the fashion industry articulated their struggles with motherhood and the
lack of support for females, equating this life event as the factor that forced them out of the
fashion industry.
Summary
Findings for this study indicate the different ways gender bias is experienced by female
fashion designers, and the behaviors triggered by the women’s harmful experiences with gender
bias which shaped the women’s beliefs about themselves, their perceived abilities, behaviors,
influencing their present-day decisions. Intersectional bias was also described by non-White
participants who added in their experiences with racial bias. All study participants reported
psychological struggles related to how their appearance misaligned to the female ideal presented
by many brands as their target customer. Participants recalled being subjected to inappropriate
comments and treatment based on appearance and not being taken seriously while lacking
support from female colleagues and leaders. In addition, the evolved differences contributed to
the discriminatory practices within the fashion industry based on age, body size, Eurocentric
perceptions of beauty, complexion, and motherhood pressuring designers to conform to an ideal
woman archetype. Participants also explained how the social role of benevolent paternalism
69

influenced how industry professionals viewed their skills and identities as beneath the idealized
White male creative genius hindering their prospects for networking and career advancement.
Consistent with the literature, gender bias detrimentally impacted the participants’ beliefs
about themselves, the roles they fill, and their views regarding motherhood. Most respondents
recounted feeling exhaustion due to the consistent need to prove oneself and the pressures to
appear a certain way. The women uncomfortably recalled their direct or indirect experiences
with the social role expectation of the friendly servant as industry leaders often downgraded their
work to note taking, serving, modeling, and stagnation avoiding self-promotion. Lastly,
participants with children depicted their heartbreaking stories around feeling devalued due to
their role as mothers, forcing them to step away from their fashion career. All participants
expressed the disadvantages they experienced in the feminized fashion field. The multiple hoops
and hurdles they must go through for equal treatment, equal pay, and career advancements have
adversely affected their attitudes and behaviors around their chosen profession.

70

Chapter Five: Recommendations and Discussion
The fashion industry employs millions of people globally and provides multiple job
opportunities for women in manufacturing, retail, and design sectors (Korica & Bazin, 2019).
Gender bias against women continues to threaten women’s work security and stability,
preventing women from moving up the fashion career ladder (Brown et al., 2018; Hurley, 2005;
Leslie, 2012; Stokes, 2017). Glass runways replace glass ceilings in the fashion industry where
the career advancement of men, notably gay men, is prioritized over women (Stokes, 2015). Data
reveals that the number of women in fashion company executive and director positions are below
the average when compared with Fortune 500 corporations (Stokes, 2017). Research also
indicates the prevalence of gender inequality as a major issue for women employed in the
fashion industry (Brown et al., 2018). Within fashion’s feminized design field female creatives
mostly fill subordinate roles as men, often gay men, are held up as the ideal fashion designers
(Leslie, 2012; Stokes, 2015; Williams, 2013). The fashion industry’s exclusionary practices
include lower wages, and fewer opportunities for career advancement, industry acknowledgment,
and accolades (Amed & Berg, 2020; Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2017; Martin & Frenette,
2017; Pike, 2016; Stokes, 2015; 2017). There is a crisis in the fashion industry that perpetuates
the White male power structure and provides an opportunity for education institutions to find
solutions that mitigate the ongoing industry gender bias.
Overview of Study
This study explored how gender bias is experienced by female AICAD alumnae in the
fashion industry. The study interview protocol investigated the experiences of discrimination
within the careers of female fashion designers. The study also explored how curriculum within
the post-secondary educational process has influenced career path outcomes. Using qualitative
71

methods, one-on-one interviews were conducted to obtain first-hand accounts into the lived
experiences of gender bias by women working in the fashion industry. The selection of alumnae
from 4-year fashion programs at AICAD schools ensured that participants aligned with available
data on typical fashion designers and fulfilled the research question requirements. To promote
accurate data collection and allow for a diverse geographic representation of participants,
question interviews took place over Zoom. All participants recounted personal experiences with
gender bias and articulated how gender bias had influenced their career paths.
Discussion of Findings
The research findings emerged from analysis through the social role theoretical
framework to gain further insight into gender bias within the fashion industry. Social role theory
(Eagly, 1987) provided the conceptual framework used to examine how gendered expectations in
the feminized fashion industry affect the career paths of female alumnae. The conceptual
framework supplied the characteristic of psychological factors, social roles, and evolved
differences (Eagly & Wood, 1999) as an organizing structure for this study’s investigation of the
experiences and effects of gender bias in the fashion industry. The framework also focused on
the impact of culture in how gender expectations are shaped and communicated.
Summary of Findings
Female designers are known to work harder and produce work equal to their White male
counterparts, yet meritocratic standards falsely ascribe creative success to White men. Within the
fashion industry men, most often gay men, are idealized as fashion designers despite 85% of
design roles being filled by females (Fashion Designers, 2019). Findings for this study presented
the different ways gender bias is experienced by female fashion designers, and the behaviors that
are triggered by the women’s experiences with gender bias. Intersectional bias was also
72

experienced by non-White participants who added in experiences with racial bias. In addition,
challenges with motherhood forced some women out of the fashion industry. The experiences of
bias shaped the participants beliefs about themselves and their perceived abilities. Perceptions of
skill and expectations of treatment based on past experiences in turn shaped the present-day
decisions and behaviors of the designers. These findings are consistent with the literature
framing creative skills and artistic identities around the archetype of a White, male, creative
genius, lowering women’s own expectations of creativity and problem-solving skills. By
reducing women’s beliefs in their personal capabilities, their future career success is cruelly
impacted by systems outside of their control.
Implications of the Study
Gender bias in the fashion industry is pervasive, negatively impacting the bottom line at
companies. The devaluation of female work is a product of gender bias, reducing the lifetime
earning potential of female designers. Hardy et al.’s (2012) study noted that a 1% gender bias at
a Fortune 500 company that hires 8000 workers per year can result in annual productivity losses
of $2.8 million. Whereas gender bias negatively impacts an organization's financial performance,
companies in the top quartile for gender diversity generate 55% higher earnings compared with
the national industry median across all industries (Brown et al., 2018).
The findings from this study may help AICAD schools become more aware of the biases
women and BIPOC experience in the fashion industry. Gender and racial inequity begin in the
fashion design classroom where students outside of a White, male, bourgeois identity are
subjected to socially constructed biases that assign a lower value to their work (Oakley et al.,
2017; Stokes, 2017). These practices are mirrored in the fashion industry where the creative
work of women and BIPOC carries less social capital and monetary value than the creative
73

efforts of men who receive the lion's share of press praise and adulation (Stokes, 2015, 2017).
Gender bias and racism are flourishing as fashion’s hiring practices continue to perpetuate the
White male power structure stunting the leadership career paths for women and BIPOC
(Gallagher, 2020; Stokes, 2015, 2017). AICAD school administrators, faculty, and staff have an
institutional responsibility to implement strategic plans that will mitigate gender and race biases
in the fashion industry.
Recommendations for Practice
In addressing gender bias the following plan was developed to increase faculty support
for female students. Faculty have expressed dismay that the students are overly sensitive to
criticism and lack the needed skills to be successful in the industry. The reactions of faculty to
this criticism are best understood through the social contingency lens presented by Tetlock
(1992) where motivation to appease an audience is associated with social image protection, self-
image preservation, and competition for scarce resources. In this case, faculty are motivated to
protect their self-image as faculty, their standing within the college community, and their jobs
within a competitive academic discipline.
Career advancement is often achieved through education. (Caputo, 2004; Ma, 2009). The
specific training required for fashion designers has led to the development of programs within
AICAD schools to meet these training needs (Lindemann et al., 2016; Ma, 2009; Martin &
Frenette, 2017). Teaching practices within AICAD schools are based on traditions which center a
male identity. Ontological expectations centered on desired behaviors and epistemological
expectations focused on classroom assessment practices are designed to uphold and value the
dominant gender cultures present in the fashion industry. Women, who receive a lower return on
their educational investment than men (Pennamon, 2018) experience a devaluation of their
74

creative output the moment they set foot in an AICAD classroom (Lindemann et al., 2016). In a
field touting meritocratic pay structures determined by talent and skill, women are struggling to
garner fair pay for equal creative output.
Role incongruity theory finds that females face more bias when it comes to filling
traditionally male roles (Koenig & Eagly, 2014). As a feminized creative field, the fashion
industry is falsely perceived as unlikely to perpetuate gender bias (Conor et al., 2015). Role
congruity theory found that gay men were seen as the most qualified fashion designers, placing
women at a disadvantage based on their gender (Koenig & Eagly, 2014). Additionally, data
suggests that females experience bias more than males. Luksyte et al. (2018) found that within
organizations women are described in terms of personal attributes, not accomplishments, and are
not expected to challenge the status quo, promote new work methods, disrupt work routines, or
behave in an innovative way.
The joint efforts of all stakeholder groups will be required to achieve greater gender
equality within AICAD colleges and the larger fashion industry. The key stakeholder groups
involved in meeting the goals of increased support for female students include administration,
faculty, and students at AICAD schools. The administration has been tasked with connecting the
faculty to research on gender bias in the fashion industry. Administrators are also charged with
providing training for faculty on best practices for supporting diverse students in the classroom
and best practices for decolonizing the curriculum.
Brofenbrenner’s ecological systems theory demonstrates that interactions between
organizations can affect individuals, providing an understanding of student achievement as a
developmental outcome created through interactions among layers within a complex system
(Johnson, 2008). Faculty who have primarily interacted with an industry that values a male
75

identity communicate expectations that uphold this identity, often devaluing the diverse
viewpoints female students bring into the classroom. Culturally and linguistically responsive
teaching and learning practices which incorporate gender expectations are thought to be a crucial
factor in reaching this goal. Current conversations on gender identity focus on support for non-
binary students. This study highlighted that an often-overlooked area needed for success within
AICAD schools is the need for pedagogy that directly addresses gender bias. To address these
concerns, AICAD faculty will receive training on culturally and linguistically responsive
teaching and learning.
Table 4 provides a breakdown of schools and faculty that will be targeted in the two
educational solutions that are presented. The number of faculty targeted in these two solutions
are estimated from schools listed on the AICAD website which offer a BFA degree in fashion
design (AICAD, 2021). Individual school websites linked to the AICAD site were used in
estimating the total number of fashion faculty who teach in the schools’ fashion design programs.
Costume, textile, and fiber degrees are not included in the totals.

Table 4
Number of AICAD Fashion Faculty
School

Number of fashion faculty

California College of the Arts

10
College for Creative Studies

8
Columbus College of Art and Design

7
Otis College of Art and Design

30
Parsons School of Design

52
Pratt Institute

43
School of the Art Institute of Chicago 27
Total faculty 177

76

Recommendation 1: Faculty Training Program
The faculty training solution consists of evidence-based suggestions for the design and
implementation of faculty development workshops and learning communities to support
classroom instruction focused on gender equity. The implementation phase of the training will
include hour-long workshops held prior to the start of the semester and monthly throughout the
semester for a total of nine times a year. These 9 hours of training will be supported by four 90-
minute faculty learning community meetings that provide follow-up collaborative activities for
faculty to deepen learning. These collaborative activities will provide support for mindful
incorporation of culturally responsive pedagogical practices and create opportunities for course
corrections based on context specific recommendations. Set aside time for collaboration will also
provide ways for faculty to provide qualitative input on the development of culturally and
linguistically responsive classroom practices.
The hour-long training events will be held in-person at each school and will include a
facilitator and guest speaker from the school community. Lunch will be provided for all
participants. To avoid incurring additional costs, existing school facilities will be used. Each 60-
minute event will focus on implementation of gender inclusive pedagogical practices in
classroom instruction, followed by repeated practice in validating, affirming, building, and
bridging the diverse cultural expressions of learners. Members of the FLC will lead breakout
discussion groups during the training to create additional feedback opportunities for faculty.
Additional training will take place in 90-minute faculty learning communities that will
model classroom best practices. Lunch will be provided during these sessions. A facilitator will
provide faculty with scaffolded opportunities to practice skills with real time feedback. To
support female students, training will incorporate time for faculty to reflect on their own gender
77

expression, expectations, and positionality within dominant cultures. Further support will be
provided to faculty through the emphasis of frameworks that call out dominant cultural
expressions and reflection activities focused on faculty support of female students.
The implementation training will provide opportunities for faculty to celebrate
achievement of immediate goals and experience practices that support female students in the
classroom. To ensure that faculty can sustain and build self-efficacy around gender equity in
teaching and learning, monthly follow up training with an emphasis on classroom support and
modeling will be incorporated nine times during the school year. Feedback and results collected
during the implementation training will inform areas of emphasis for follow up modeling and
classroom support.
Faculty will have opportunities to provide feedback on the training twice a year through a
survey developed in house. The annual cost for the survey development and administration
includes an annual subscription to a survey tool for three employees. Labor is not factored into
this cost as the employees tapped for survey development are expected to do this work as part of
their day-to-day tasks. Table 5 provides an overview of the implementation costs for faculty
training. These costs are estimated for calendar year 2022 and incorporate training for all AICAD
fashion faculty at the schools listed in Table 4.

Table 5
Faculty Training Implementation Costs
Method(s)

Timing

FY cost

1 hour facilitator led training with guest speaker

9 times a year $286,785
90-minute FLC

4 times a year $205,440
Faculty surveys to provide additional supports

Twice a year $1,800
Total training implementation costs

$494,025
78

Follow-up training will connect faculty with positive examples that encourage an
expectation for success and reaffirm beliefs that gender responsive practices will lead to
increased student success. There will also be opportunities to openly address faculty beliefs on
their own positionality and reflect on their relationship to non-dominant cultures and how these
cultures are represented and supported in both the classroom and curriculum.
Faculty also need to be trained on how to set specific goals aligned to gender equity in
teaching and learning. To support this, frequent and timely feedback from peers and
administrators will be given to faculty as they reflect and evaluate personal progress toward
achievement of goals. This training will take place nine times a year and will include an outside
facilitator to oversee and create opportunities for realignment to culturally responsive practices,
particularly when faculty are reverting to educator centered pedagogical practices.
To celebrate and share best practices around gender equity, research grants will be offered
to faculty who participate in the quarterly seminars. These grants will support the development of
classroom practices that support gender equality. It will also provide acknowledgement and
recognition of faculty success in supporting female students. The grants will work to increase
faculty factual, procedural, conceptual, and metacognitive knowledge, enhance confidence and
commitment, and reinforce the value of supporting female students in the classroom.
As faculty work toward the achievement of the training goals, they will need a supportive
environment with co-faculty, administration, and staff. This community will work toward the
development of knowledge and skills to cultivate classroom environments that support female
students. Table 6 provides a summary of the methods and timings of the faculty follow up
training.
79

Table 6
Faculty Training Follow-up Costs
Method(s)

Timing

FY cost

Classroom practice

9 times a year $242,100
Conference attendance

Annual $65,056
Community partnerships

Annual $6,810
School recognition

10 times a year $14,500
Survey development and
administration

Annual $1,800
Total training implementation costs

$328,266

Analysis of Costs and Benefits
In designing educational solutions that address an industry, costs will be immediate, and
the benefits will be cumulative and long term. Using available data, fashion faculty training
implementation and follow up costs for fashion faculty training at all schools listed in Table 4
were calculated over a 5-year period (2022-2026). The present value (PV) for this scenario is -
$607,495.00. Assuming a discount rate of 5%, the net present value (NPV) is -$608,637.00 and
the benefit cost ratio (BCR) is .63. Table 7 provides a breakdown of costs and benefits for a 1%
solution on the gender wage gap over a 5-year period. In this scenario the number of fashion
graduates entering the industry is held constant with a 1% individual yearly wage gap reduction.

Table 7
Training Costs for 1% Solution
Fiscal year

Costs

Benefits

Benefits less costs

2023

$336,144 $159,060 -$177,084
2024

$344,548 $244,436 -$100,112
2025

$352,989 $333,639 -$19,351
2026

$361,355 $426,432 $65,076
80

Recommendation 2: Curriculum Development Program
In examining the gender wage gap, research has focused on the relationship of
personality and wages. Mueller and Plug’s (2006) study suggested that 3% of the gender wage
gap could be attributed to differences in the big five personality traits. The big five personality
traits are the result of decades of personality research and are defined as extraversion, emotional
stability, agreeableness, conscientiousness, and openness to experience. Additional research has
noted a link between agreeableness and lower wages. Nyhus and Pons (2011) indicated that
gender differences in the traits are linked to the use of less-effective hierarchy of negotiation
tactics and a higher tendency to choose a low-paid service occupation which can explain parts of
the gender wage gap. Traits which have been linked to higher wages such as negotiation tactics
will be addressed by the professional practice curriculum.
Ontological and epistemological relationships have been established within the
curriculum which uphold a male identity; however, the student population is predominantly
female (NCES, 2019). The mechanized accountability relationships established within the
curriculum do not serve students who have expressed that they feel sidelined by the faculty. In
rolling out the new curriculum, training will continue to provide faculty with skills for
curriculum delivery and pedagogical practices that validate, affirm, build, and bridge female
students in the classroom. An emphasis on classroom support and modeling will be
incorporated. Previous training has provided opportunities for faculty to celebrate achievement
of immediate goals and experience practices that support diverse students and non-dominant
cultures in the classroom. Implementation training will connect faculty with successful examples
that encourage an expectation for success and reaffirm beliefs that culturally responsive practices
will lead to increased student success. There will also be opportunities to openly address faculty
81

beliefs on their own positionality and reflect on their relationship to non-dominant cultures and
how these cultures are represented and supported in both the classroom and curriculum.
The curriculum will be developed by a cohort of instructional designers within the
AICAD network. Instructional designers work on site at each AICAD school and have completed
master’s level coursework on best practices related to teaching and learning. Curriculum
development is part of the job of an instructional designer. This project will require more
collaboration than normal. The cost of extra time and work that will be expected from each
instructional designer has been factored into the implementation costs of the program.
An AICAD faculty member from each school will work with the instructional designer in
creating and piloting curriculum and assessments that are more inclusive for female students
with a focus on building the strong technical skills necessary for a successful fashion designer. In
the curriculum design process, strategies to improve negotiation will be an area of focus, with an
overall goal of decreasing agreeableness in the negotiation process for female students. The
students will need to focus on successfully acquiring the skills and work habits necessary for a
career in the fashion industry and will also engage in self-reflection and targeted goal setting to
promote their future success in the fashion industry. Table 8 outlines the year 1 implementation
and development costs of the professional practice curriculum for the schools listed in Table 4.

Table 8
Faculty Curriculum Implementation Costs
Method(s)

Timing

FY cost

1 hour facilitator led training

9 times a year $286,785
Curriculum development

Annual $ 11,000
Faculty surveys to provide additional supports

2 times a year $ 1,800
Total training implementation costs

$299,585
82

The implementation training will acquaint faculty with curricular expectations that
support female students in the classroom through the development of professional skills. To
ensure that faculty can sustain and build self-efficacy in delivering the new professional practice
curriculum, a follow up monthly classroom training with an emphasis on collaboration and
modeling will be incorporated nine times during the school year. Feedback and results collected
during the implementation training will inform areas of emphasis for follow up classroom
support. Faculty will be given time to reflect on the new curriculum and how it can be
maximized to support female students.
Faculty also need training to set specific goals aligned to gender equity in teaching and
learning. To support this, annual educational conference attendance will be encouraged to expose
faculty to current thinking and solutions for eliminating gender bias in the classroom. Conference
attendance will be available for up to 25% of current faculty, with the expectation that all faculty
will attend a conference at least once every 4 years.
To develop best practices around gender equity, faculty research grants will be offered.
These awards will support the development of equitable classroom practices. It will also provide
acknowledgement and recognition of faculty success in delivering professional practice
curriculum. This will increase faculty knowledge, enhance confidence and commitment, and
reinforce the value of supporting female students in the classroom.
As faculty work toward successful implementation of the professional practice
curriculum, they will need a supportive environment with co-faculty, administration, and staff.
This community will work toward development and implementation of a professional practice
curriculum that supports female students’ future industry success. Table 9 provides a summary of
the methods and timings of the faculty follow-up training for the schools listed in Table 4.
83

Table 9
Curriculum Development Follow-up Costs
Method(s) Timing FY cost
Conference attendance Annual $252,225
School recognition 10 times a year $ 14,500
Survey development and administration Annual $ 1,800
Total training implementation costs

$510,625

Analysis of Costs and Benefits
Classroom support training will connect faculty with successful examples that encourage
an expectation for success and reaffirm beliefs that gender responsive curriculum will lead to
increased student success. Conference attendance will support networking and collaboration
among schools outside of the AICAD organization. In designing educational solutions that
address an industry, costs will be immediate, and the benefits will be cumulative and long term.
Estimated job figures and inflation data are not available outside of a 10-year period which
makes calculating a breakeven point very difficult. Using available data, faculty training
implementation and follow up costs for curriculum development were calculated over a 5-year
term (2022-2026) for the 7 schools listed in Table 4. The PV for this scenario is $1,253,874.
Assuming a discount rate of 5%, the NPV is $999,068 and the BCR is 1.47. Table 10 provides a
breakdown of costs and benefits for a 3% solution on the gender wage gap over a 5-year period
beginning in 2022. The costs have been adjusted to include inflation. In this scenario, the number
of fashion graduates entering the industry is held constant each year. A 3% reduction in the wage
gap is assumed each year.
84

Table 10
Training Costs for 3% Solution
Fiscal Year Costs Benefits Benefits less costs
2022 $299,585 $232,771 -$66,814
2023 $522,880 $477,181 -$45,699
2024 $535,952 $733,307 $197,355
2025 $549,083 $1,00,916 $451,833
2026 $562,096 $1,279,295 $717,199

Limitations and Delimitations
The methodologies were designed to gain detailed narratives and information on gender
bias in the fashion design from a specific sample. Within these methodologies limitations and
delimitations are present. Research design limitations refer to external factors and design
constraints that cannot be eliminated through study design or controlled through study design,
delimitations refer to intentional boundaries of the phenomena or group being studied (Merriam
& Tisdell, 2016).
A limitation of the proposed phenomenological study methodology was the high
likelihood of technical difficulties due to the reliance on Zoom for conducting interviews.
Internet connectivity can pose limits to effective communication due to poor or unreliable
connection speeds. Video interviews also hindered non-verbal cues between the researcher and
study participants which can limit candor in participant responses. The small sample size and
qualitative methods used in this study led to transferability and generalizability not being strong
(Creswell & Creswell, 2018).
The sample design is the main delimitation of this study as participants were selected
based on gender and education which places limits on respondent diversity. AICAD schools are
85

more expensive than public universities which may have led to participants having a higher
social class than the average fashion designer. The selection of female fashion designers also
limited the data to the inclusion of a female perspective only, eliminating the possibility of
investigating how male designers perceive or perpetuate gender bias. The organization of the
study design around a gender binary also limited the inclusion of designers who identify outside
of the gender binary.
Recommendations for Future Research
This research focused on gender bias experienced by female AICAD alumnae in the
fashion industry. The study also explored how the AICAD curriculum has influenced career path
outcomes. There are three recommendations for future research. The first, is to expand this
research by focusing on female students who study at non-AICAD schools to learn if they
experience a similar or different experience with gender bias in the fashion industry. As
discussed in the previous section, AICAD schools are more expensive and comprehensive when
compared to other fashion design programs which limited this study to the middle- or upper-class
fashion design students. Focusing on female fashion design students from non-AICAD schools
will contribute to more comprehensive knowledge about gender bias in the fashion industry.
The second recommendation is to focus future research on bias experienced by BIPOC
fashion design students. BIPOC participants in this study communicated their experiences with
intersectional bias around race and gender. Existing studies and data on bias experienced by
BIPOC in the fashion industry are limited. A more specific focus on BIPOC fashion design
students will contribute to a greater understanding of this diverse student population.
Finally, this study did not focus on fashion students outside the female perspective.
Opening future research participation to male and non-binary fashion designers would allow for
86

inclusion of biases experienced by alumni not identifying with the gender binary. Including male
designers would allow for a clearer understanding of designer’s perception of gender bias while
potentially revealing the behaviors leading to the perpetuation of gender bias.
Implications for Equity
The creative economy is one of the world’s most rapidly growing sectors generating
trillions of dollars annually and providing a significant number of jobs worldwide (Korica &
Bazin, 2019). Women are heavily invested in the creative economy especially in the fashion
industry. Women outnumber men in fashion design colleges and universities indicating that they
achieve the same knowledge, skills, or training (Stokes, 2017). In the United States, creativity is
influenced by the dominant Eurocentric culture that perpetuates the White, middle class male
artistic expectations and standards (Hopper, 2015; Stokes, 2015) sustaining the gender wage gap
(Eisenberg & Laposata, 2013; Lindemann et al., 2016). Studies also reveal that men are much
more likely than women to be in positions of authority in feminized design fields such as fashion
design (CFDA, 2020; Stokes 2015, 2017). These social and economic inequalities need to be
counteracted by policies that envision a world where the creative economy has the right place.
Elimination of gender bias will begin in the art and design education institutions as they consider
gender culture as a policy domain and a transversal component across the diversity, equity, and
inclusion organization landscape.
Conclusion
Fashion industry leadership stereotypes center around a White male agentic identity.
Despite equal knowledge, skills, and training, creative work produced by female artists and
designers is perceived as less innovative (Allen et al., 2013; Chicago, 2014; Hopper, 2015;
Lindemann et al., 2016; Martin & Frenette, 2017; Proudfoot et al., 2015; Stokes, 2015, 2017).
87

All students are charged equal tuition and contribute comparable time and resources into their
educational outcomes, yet multiple studies reveal that women and BIPOC students get a lower
return on their educational expenditures (Lindemann et al., 2016; Martin & Frenette, 2017;
Oakley et al., 2017; Stokes, 2017). Eliminating gender bias in the fashion industry requires a
long-term commitment and investment within the industry and the educational institutions
offering fashion education programming. AICAD organizations should implement faculty
training programs to support classroom instruction focused on gender equity and roll out
curriculum that validate, affirm, build, and bridge female students in the classroom. However,
addressing the wage gap from an educational perspective does not address the broader industry
trends which might not be as responsive to this approach. Additional work must be done to
extend these practices to other venues where leaders in the fashion industry can be educated.
The current systems in the fashion industry perpetuate bias against 85% of fashion
designers starting in the classroom. Educational solutions are a starting point. Effective change
will happen when educational solutions are developed in tandem with industry-wide solutions
that provide widespread immediate benefits. Future areas of analysis focused on partnerships
between industry professionals and educational institutions could provide interesting solutions to
achieving equality for male and female fashion designers. Racially charged events in the United
States during the Summer of 2020 brought a new awareness to how biases are constructed and
lived out in today’s culture. Society has a moral and ethical responsibility to increase access and
value in the education, participation, and production of cultural and artistic expressions for
female artists and designers, including those female designers working in the feminized fashion
industry.

88

References
Agòcs, C. (1997). Institutionalized resistance to organizational change: Denial, inaction, and
repression. Journal of Business Ethics, 16(9), 917–931.
Allen, K., Quinn, J., Hollingworth, S., & Rose, A. (2013). Becoming employable students and
“ideal” creative workers: exclusion and inequality in higher education work placements.
British Journal of Sociology of Education, 34(3), 431–452.
https://doi.org/10.1080/01425692.2012.714249
Baker, C., Staiano, A., & Calvert, S. (2011). Digital Expression Among Urban, Low-Income
African American Adolescents. Journal of Black Studies, 42(4), 530–547.
Baker, R. A. (2012). The effects of high-stakes testing policy on arts education. Arts Education
Policy Review, 113(1), 17–25. https://doi.org/10.1080/10632913.2012.626384.
Beutel, A. M., Burge, S. W., & Borden, B. A. (2018). Femininity and choice of college major.
Gender Issues, 35(2), 113–136.
Bradley, N. (2013, June 26). Don’t go to art school. I.M.H.O., Medium. https://medium.com/i-
m-h-o/dont-go-to-art-school-138c5efd45e9
Brown, P., Marchessou, S., Villepelet, C., & Haas, S. (2018, October 4). Shattering the glass
runway. McKinsey Insights. https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/retail/our-
insights/shattering-the-glass-runway
Burke, P., & McManus, J. (2011). Art for a few: exclusions and misrecognitions in higher
education admissions practices. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of
Education, 32(5), 699–712. https://doi.org/10.1080/01596306.2011.620753
Business of Fashion (2020, February 21). BoF 500 2019.
https://www.businessoffashion.com/community/bof500
89

Cameron, L. (2019). Art and gender: market bias or selection bias? Journal of Cultural
Economics, 43(2), 279–307.
Caputo, R. K. (2004). Professional studies vs. liberal arts & sciences: family background, head
start participation, and high school curriculum as predictors of college major. Race,
Gender & Class, 11(3), 112.
Caves, R. E. (2000). Creative industries: Contracts between art and commerce. Harvard
University Press.
Charland, W. (2010). African American youth and the artist’s identity: Cultural models and
aspirational foreclosure. Studies in Art Education, 51, 115–133.
Chicago, J. (2014). Institutional time: A critique of studio art education. Monacelli Press.
Council of Fashion Designers of America. (2020). CFDA Members https://cfda.com/members
Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed
methods approaches. Sage Publications.
Davis, F. (1994). Fashion, culture, and identity. University of Chicago Press.
Eagly, A.H. (1987). Sex differences in social behavior : A social-role interpretation. L. Erlbaum
Associates.
Eagly, A., & Carli, L. (2007). Through the labyrinth: The truth about how women become
leaders. Harvard Business School Press.
Eagly, A. & Karau, S. (2002). Role congruity theory of prejudice toward female leaders. Journal
of Psychological Review, 109(3), 573–598. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.109.3.573
Eagly, A. & Sczensy, S. (2019). Editorial: Gender roles in the future? Theoretical foundations
and future research directions. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 1965
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01965
90

Eagly, A., & Steffen, V. (1984). Gender stereotypes stem from the distribution of women and
men into social roles. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46(4), 735–754.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.46.4.735
Eagly, A. & Wood, W. (1999). The origins of sex differences in human behavior: Evolved
dispositions versus social roles. American Psychologist, 54(6), 408–423.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.54.6.408
Eisenberg, G. R., & Laposata, S. M. (2013). Case study of the gender earnings gap: a
longitudinal analysis of cohort data of same‐department graduates at a small liberal arts
college. Journal of Employment Counseling, 50(4), 179–189.
Ellen MacArthur Foundation. (2017). A new textiles economy: Redesigning fashion’s
future. http://www.ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/
Fashion designers. (2019). Data USA. Retrieved May 1, 2021, from
https://datausa.io/profile/soc/fashion-designers.
Fine, G. A. (2017). A matter of degree: Negotiating art and commerce in MFA education.
American Behavioral Scientist, 61(12), 1463–1486.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764217734272
Frenette, A. & Tepper, S. (2016). What difference does it make? Assessing the effects of arts-
based training on career pathways. In R. Camunian & A. Gilmore (Eds.), Higher
education and the creative economy: Beyond the campus (pp. 83-101). Routledge.
Friedman, V. (2015, October 6). Once Upon a Glass Ceiling. The New York Times.
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/06/fashion/paris-fashion-week-spring-2016-
alexander-mcqueen-stella-mccartney.html
91

Gallagher, J. (2020, Jun 29). The fashion industry is very White. These three designers know that
all too well. Independent black designers face systemic racism in an industry where
they're the clear minority. The Wall Street Journal.
Harvey L., Blackwell A. (1999). Gender bias in incomes of UK art and design graduates.
Industry and Higher Education, 13(5), 323–329.
https://doi.org/10.5367/000000099101294609
Haslam, S., Adarves-Yorno, I., Postmes, T., & Jans, L. (2013). The Collective Origins of Valued
Originality: A Social Identity Approach to Creativity. Personality and Social Psychology
Review, 17(4), 384–401. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868313498001
Henry, C. (2009), ‘Women and the creative industries: exploring the popular appeal. Creative
Industries Journal 2(2), 143–160, https://doi.org/10.1386/cij.2.2.143/1
Hesmondhalgh, D., & Baker, S. (2008). Creative work and emotional labour in the television
industry. Theory, Culture, and Society, 25(7–8), 97–118.
Hopper, G. (2015). Art, education and gender: The shaping of female ambition. Palgrave
Macmillan.
Horowitz, R. & Mohun, A. (1998). His and hers: Gender, consumption, and technology.
University Press of Virginia.
Hoyt, C., Johnson, S., Murphy, S., & Skinnell, K. (2010). The impact of blatant stereotype
activation and group sex-composition on female leaders. The Leadership
Quarterly, 21(5), 716–732. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2010.07.003
Hurley, J. (2005). Unravelling the web: Supply chains and workers’ lives in the garment
industry. In A. Hale & J. Willis. (Eds.), Threads of Labour (pp. 95-132). Blackwell.
https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470761434.ch5
92

Kim, Y. K., Collins, C. S., Rennick, L. A., & Edens, D. (2017). College experiences and
outcomes among international undergraduate students at research universities in the
United States: A comparison to their domestic peers. Journal of International Students,
7(2), 395–420.
Knox, A. (2019, September 30). Gender bias and art in Aotearoa: a Spinoff survey reveals the
harsh reality. The Spinoff. https://thespinoff.co.nz/art/30-09-2019/gender-bias-and-art-in-
aotearoa-a-spinoff-survey-reveals-the-harsh-reality/
Korica, M., & Bazin, Y (2019). Fashion and organization studies: Exploring conceptual
paradoxes and empirical opportunities. Organization Studies, 40(10). 1481–1497.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840619831059
Kraehe, A. M., Acuff, J. B. & Travis, S. (2016) Equity, the arts, and urban education: A review.
The Urban Review, 48 220–244. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11256-016-0352-2
Leslie, D. (2012). Gender, commodity chains and everyday life. In B. Warf (Ed.), Encounters
and engagements between economic and cultural geography. (pp. 67–78). Springer.
Lindemann, D. J., Rush, C. A., & Tepper, S. J. (2016). An asymmetrical portrait: Exploring
gendered income inequality in the arts. Social Currents, 3(4), 332–348.
https://doi.org/10.1177/2329496516636399
Luftig, R. L., Donovan, M. J., Farnbaugh, C. L., Kennedy, E. E., Filicko, T., & Wyszomirski, M.
J. (2003). So what are you doing after college? An investigation of individuals studying
the arts at the post- secondary level, their job aspirations and levels of realism. Studies in
Art Education, 45(1), 5–19
93

Ma, Y. (2009). Family socioeconomic status, parental involvement, and college major choices--
gender, race/ethnic, and nativity patterns. Sociological Perspectives, 52(2), 211–234.
https://doi.org/10.1525/sop.2009.52.2.211
Martin, N. D., & Frenette, A. (2017). Lost in transition: College resources and the unequal early
career trajectories of arts alumni. American Behavioral Scientist, 61(12), 1487–1509.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764217734273
Marchenko, & Sonnabend, H. (2022). Artists’ labour market and gender: Evidence from
German visual artists. Kyklos, 75(3), 456–471. https://doi.org/10.1111/kykl.12302
Mears, A. (2011). Pricing beauty: The making of a fashion model. University of California Press.
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and
implementation. Jossey-Bass.
Miller, D. L. (2016). Gender and the artist archetype: Understanding gender inequality in artistic
careers. Sociology Compass, 10(2),119–131. https://doi.org/10.1111/soc4.12350
National Center for Education Statistics (2019). Total cost of attendance [Data file].
https://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/datacenter/MasterVariableList.aspx?cFrom=ADDVARIABLE
National Endowment for the Arts (2011). Artists and arts workers in the United States.
(Research Note 105). Art Works. https://www.arts.gov/sites/default/files/105.pdf
Northouse, P. G. (2019). Leadership: Theory and practice (8th ed.). Sage Publications.
Oakley, K., Laurison, D., O’Brien, D., & Friedman, S. (2017). Cultural capital: Arts graduates,
spatial inequality, and London’s impact on cultural labour markets. American Behavioral
Scientist, 61(12), 1510–1531. http://www.doi.org/10.1177/0002764217734274
94

Ocbazghi, E. & Skvaril, C. (2019, February 27). Why these Gucci clothes are racist. Business
Insider. https://www.businessinsider.com/why-gucci-clothes-racist- blackface-sambo-
2019-2
Parsad, B., & Spiegelman, M. (2012). Arts Education in Public Elementary and Secondary
Schools: 1999–2000 and 2009–10 (NCES 2012–014). National Center for Education
Statistics. http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2012014rev
Pennamon, T. (2018). Report: Women Need Additional Degree to Attain Equal Pay. Diverse
Issues in Higher Education, 35(4), 6.
Pike, H. (2016. September 9). Female fashion designers are still in the minority. Business of
Fashion https://www.businessoffashion.com/articles/fashion-week/less-female-fashion-
designers-more-male-designers/
Piper, J. (2018). Student debt is worse for women: They borrow more than men do, and then earn
less, making it harder for them to repay their loans. The Chronicle of Higher Education,
64(41), 30.
Proudfoot, D., Kay, A., & Koval, C. (2015). A Gender Bias in the Attribution of Creativity:
Archival and Experimental Evidence for the Perceived Association Between Masculinity
and Creative Thinking. Psychological Science, 26(11), 1751–1761.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797615598739
Reeves, R., Rodrigue, E. & Kneebone, E. (2016). Five evils: Multidimensional race and poverty
in America. The Brookings Institution. https://www.brookings.edu/wp-
content/uploads/2016/06/ReevesKneeboneRodrigue_MultidimensionalPoverty_FullPaper
.pdf
Robelen, E. W. (2011). Arts education for minority children drops. Education Week, 30(23), 6.
95

Staiti, A. (2020). Real Women, Normal Curves, and the Making of the American Fashion
Mannequin, 1932–1946. Configurations, 28(4), 403–431.
https://doi.org/10.1353/con.2020.0029
Sherrid, E. (2016, April 1). The room of silence [Video]. Vimeo. https://vimeo.com/161259012
Stokes, A. (2015). The glass runway: How gender and sexuality shape the spotlight in fashion
design. Gender and Society, 29(2), 219–243. https://doi.org/10.1177/0891243214563327
Stokes, A. (2017). Fashioning gender: The gendered organization of cultural work. Social
Currents, 4(6), 518–534. https://doi.org/10.1177/2329496516686613
The Association of Independent Colleges of Art & Design (2021). Undergraduate Programs
with Fashion Design Major. https://www.aicad.org/schools/page/2/?sID&program-
availability%5B0%5D=7&dID=undergrad&pID=131&rID
Topaz, C. M., Klingenberg, B., Turek, D., Heggeseth, B., Harris, P. E., Blackwood, J. C.,
Chavoya, C.O., Nelson, S., Murphy, K. M. (2019). Diversity of artists in major U.S.
museums. PLoS ONE, 14(3). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0212852
Tortora, P. & Eubank, K. (2010) Survey of Historic Costume. (5th ed.). Fairchild Books.
United Nations Conference on Trade and Development. (2010) Creative economy: a feasible
development option. Creative Economy Report 2010.
https://unctad.org/en/pages/PublicationArchive.aspx?publicationid=946
United States Bureau of Labor Statistics (2021, February 28) Fashion Designers. Occupational
Outlook Handbook. https://www.bls.gov/ooh/Arts-and-Design/Fashion-designers.htm
Warburton, E. C. (2006). Access to arts beyond high school: Issues of demand and availability in
American higher education. Arts Education Policy Review, 107(6), 11–16.
96

Warf, B. (Ed). (2012). Encounters and Engagements between Economic and Cultural
Geography. Springer Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-2975-9
Williams, C. (1992) The glass escalator: Hidden advantages for men in the “female professions.”
Social Problems 39, 253–267.
Williams, C., (2013) The glass escalator, revisited: Gender inequality in neoliberal times. Gender
& Society 27, 609–629.
Wissinger, E. (2012). Managing the semiotics of skin tone: Race and aesthetic labor in the
fashion modeling industry. Economic and Industrial Democracy, 33(1), 125–143.
Wood, W., & Eagly, A. (2012). Chapter two: Biosocial construction of sex differences and
similarities in behavior. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 46, 55–123.
https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-394281-4.00002-7
Verniers C., & Vala J. (2018) Correction: Justifying gender discrimination in the workplace: The
mediating role of motherhood myths. PLOS ONE, 13(7),
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0201150

97

Appendix A: Interview Protocol
Two research questions guided this study:
1. How is gender bias evident within the fashion industry?
2. How does the reinforcement of gender bias affect alumnae behavior?
Study Participants
The study participants were female alumnae of Bachelor of Fine Art (BFA) fashion
design programs at post-secondary art and design colleges that belong to the American
Independent Colleges of Art and Design (AICAD) consortium.
Interview Script
Hello, I am Natalie Salvador and I want to take this opportunity to thank you for agreeing
to be interviewed as part of my dissertation research. I want to understand how you perceive
gender as affecting your career path if at all. Although gender is the focus of this study it is just
one component of who we are as a person. Gender identity is often intertwined with one’s racial
identity and social class. To allow space for this some of the questions I will be asking will allow
for these identities to be expressed. I know you are a very busy person so after we have
completed our interview, I will be transcribing the conversation and sending it back to you for a
check. I want to assure you that our conversation is confidential and that your anonymity will be
preserved in my research and dissertation. Before we get started can you confirm that I have your
permission to record this conversation for transcription purposes only?
Thank you. Are there any questions you have for me about this process?
98

Table 11
Interview Protocol
Interview questions Potential probes RQ addressed Q type (Patton)
1. What led you to pursue
a career in the fashion
industry?

Can you tell me more
about that?

RQ2

Feeling

2.What year did you
graduate from college?

What college did you
attend?
RQ2 Background
3. What were your career
goals when you first
started in the fashion
industry?

Can you define that a
little more?
RQ2

Background
4. What are your current
career goals?

Can you elaborate on
that for me?
RQ1
RQ2
Opinion or
belief
5. How have your career
goals changed over
time?
Can you describe that a
little more?
What do you mean
by…?

RQ1
RQ2
Opinion,
feelings
6. Have you witnessed
gender bias in your
career? Describe.

Can you give me an
example of that?
RQ1

Knowledge and
experience
7. Have you witnessed
racial bias in your
career? Describe.

Can you give me an
example of that?
RQ1
RQ2

Knowledge and
experience
8. What career decisions
have you made because
of your gender identity?
Can you elaborate on
that for me?
What do you mean
by…?

RQ1
RQ2

Opinion
9. What career decisions
have you made because
of your racial identity?
Can you elaborate on
that for me?
What do you mean
by…?

RQ1
RQ2

Opinion
99

Interview questions Potential probes RQ addressed Q type (Patton)
10. What career decisions
have you made because
of your social class?
Can you elaborate on
that for me?
What do you mean
by…?

RQ1
RQ2

Opinion
11. How did your
undergraduate education
prepare you for your
career?

Can you tell me more
about that?
RQ2

Experience
12. What would have been
beneficial in your
educational experience
to help prepare you for
your career?

Can you give me an
example?
Would you mind
defining that for me?
RQ2

Feeling
13. What else would you
like to share about your
experience in the
fashion industry?

Is there anything else
you would like to add?
Can you describe that
for me?
RQ1
RQ2

Feeling or
Opinion

Conclusion
Thank you so much for interviewing with me today. I will be transcribing our
conversation today and then will send it back to you to clarify any points. Please feel free to
contact me with any questions you have.

100

Appendix B: Participant Quotes on Keeping Up Appearances
Participant Participant quote
Victoria I think that perception of craft as being more valuable when it comes from a
man is the main one that sprang to mind.

Catherine I would definitely call myself a creative person, but I definitely have much
more of a design mind than an artist mind.

That particular part of luxury menswear is very male dominated. But there are
definitely women that design the clothes, but for some reason, the men that
buy it and market it and are all the sales reps just don't see that as much, you
know? They don't really welcome women into that part of their territory.

I mean, when I started more as the designer and taking meetings by myself
and visiting contractors, everyone was usually very surprised that I was
actually the designer. They usually thought that I was the assistant.

Market was really awful. I’d have to do laps sometimes because our buyers are
just so gross.

Julia I can pretty much design anything, but I guess I design women's wear mainly
because I am very deeply in love with it and that's where my mind goes first
and there's only a limited amount of time.

Agnes I saw more males into the graphic design, while the females were more of
doing the color coordinating and stuff like that

Helena I'm just listening to people. Or they don't listen to me or value my opinion or
think it's real.

I'll say it even happened in school with us. Like any of the guys were like way
more popular. People just love them.

Monica Even to everyone, he liked being that father figure, but not in an authoritative
way, but in that “I will teach you” way.

But she was in the trenches with every single department, working and getting
the teams to communicate. And I feel like that's such a female trait. That, in
the kitchen, in the sink, getting it done, that bee-like behavior. Going to the
flowers, bringing all that connectivity together.

But it was, there were funny times being a female in the room of only male
designers. You were just like “Okay. Just figure it out in the technical.”

101

Participant Participant quote
It was important for him to see women at the round table.

Irene It was an all-women's brand. There were very few dudes. It was founded by a
lady, and the CEO was a lady, and just lady power all the time.

I'm a very, I think, analytical designer, less so just pure creative.

Men's clothes seem real boring. So, I’ve never really wanted to do them.

Sarah I have witnessed people who have become mothers, that their dedication to
work be questioned, called into question. Or that they leave at a certain time
from work that it's considered taking a half day, jokingly or that they are not
willing to put in the long hours or work the weekends so therefore they
cannot become a director level position.

Yeah. She would like in one way, be supportive, like, “Oh you can leave every
day at 5:00.” The employee asked, “Can I leave at 5:00? I need to get home
and get the children from.” wherever, daycare something. And she's like,
“Yeah, that's fine,” but then kind of held it over her head as a lingering thing
that, “Well, because you are now entitled to this, you are not entitled to. …
Why would you be asking for anything beyond this?”

I would say I'm a pretty calm, levelheaded person who is capable of weighing
the pros and cons of the situation and deciding whether it is. … I’m not a
reactionary person. I try to be more of a proactive, forward-thinking planner
and list-maker type person.

So, when I got out of school, I focused on design, but then as I was in the
industry longer, I realized that, while I love the creative aspect of it, I leaned
more towards the analytical side of things.

102

Appendix C: Participant Quotes on The Male Gaze
Participant Participant quote
Catherine As the founder’s assistant, when I’d come, the way that some of our vendors
would ask me to get them a drink, hospitality types of things. It’s like,
“That's not my job. I'm here to take notes and send a debrief to everybody.”

Monica Anatomically they're not female. They love the female body and they're
perhaps admirers, worshipers, very influenced by the female form and the
female archetype. But they don't know how we go to the bathroom, or they
don't know where a zipper actually goes.

It was always very tight, it wasn't stretch. And so, there's always like, “Why is
it so tight here?” It was really trying to get them to understand what
females feel. And in the scope of that, or how you go to the bathroom, or
how your bra sits, just technical things. Dresses didn't have openings, or
you just couldn't get into them, or they were too tight, just no seaming. Like
you couldn’t add seams because that is a design line. But that makes it fit.

103

Appendix D: Participant Quotes on Female Support
Participant Participant quote
Helena The woman in charge of what we design, she’s in charge of all of the brands in
the office. And she’s just really, I don’t want to say controlling, but, yes, it's
controlling. It’s like, she's on the line if we don't do a good job.

Like any of the guys were like way more popular. People just love them. And
even like when I had another manager at work, she would always talk about
her favorite assistant. Like when I started, she would talk about her favorite
assistant. And she would also say like, “Oh yeah, he was this gay guy.”
Which I’m like, okay, you're bringing that up. That’s probably the only
reason you liked him.

That was our first job together. And it’s like he was late every day. And like
did all of these things that I think if I did, I would've gotten in way more
trouble. Then at one point he did get in trouble, and I saw. Because he
brought up to me like, “I don’t think they value me as much as they value
you.” Or like, “How come they’re offering you this for your raise?” When in
my head I’m like, it’s because I’m fucking working my ass off. I’m not
coming here late every day. I’m not thinking that people are just going to
know that I’m talented, so like they’re going to pay me or something like
that. I don’t know, but it’s just like, I just saw it and it’s annoying.

I’m not coming here late every day. I’m not thinking that people are just going
to know that I’m talented, so like they're going to pay me or something like
that.

After a few years, then he started getting bad reviews all the time. And I’m
like, well, yes, you're getting bad reviews, but you’re not getting fired.

I don’t know if it’s a coincidence that he’s a guy and he’s just like lucky, but
it’s mostly girls, and if they make a mistake or do something like that, they
won’t get any slack.

Monica So, Margaret, the CEO, left around a year. She was also very helpful in
bringing me up into my career.

Irene I primarily feel like I am probably a better designer of women’s product than I
am of men's product. That is an invention I have told myself because I’m a
lady.

104

Appendix E: Participant Quotes on Benevolent Paternalism
Participant Participant quote
Sarah Another thing that, I had moved from San Francisco to New York to pursue my
career and I didn’t have the means that a lot of other people that I was seeing
around me who could intern indefinitely or be at a very entry level position
for a long time because they had more financial support and I couldn't be in
that realm. I needed to be making money. So, I had to broaden my scope of
things beyond the design aspect. That led me into production and product
development and then the production position that became available for at
the beginning of my career was for an up-and-coming designer who had been
part of the CFDA incubator

Victoria I don’t have a lot of comparing and contrasting happening. Just kind of the
paternalism is the main way that I’ve noticed both its benefits and non-
benefit.

Agnes Our company is very a large percentage is female. We have two male
coworkers. I have two male coworkers, but they do more of the tech part, like
more of doing graphic design or just doing more intricate detailing and stuff
like that, while the females are more into design, because then again where I
work, the culture of it’s more towards females. I don't know if that’s … I
don’t know. I think that’s how I feel like how the company works; it’s been
working now. But who knows?

You’re not thinking about their titles. But yeah, they’re considered designers.
Yeah.

Julia I’ve always thought it was a little bit unusual that some of the greatest
designers of my time when I was still young and fresh to fashion were
actually men doing women's wear, which I think is a little bit strange because
women actually get to experience the clothing that they’re wearing firsthand
and there's this really personal connection. So, I don’t really understand. I
think that that has changed, and we have brilliant, successful women
designers who are becoming more and more recognized for their work
nowadays. But yes, I definitely feel like in the world of fashion, it’s a little
bit strange how glorified some of the male designers are versus the women
designers.

I would describe that because especially in fashion, the strongest selling point
in fashion is the desirability of something. So, I think that there are a lot of
elements to it, but I think that something being very desirable is the driving
force behind fashion. And when there is a racial bias, I think that sometimes
talent can be overlooked because when the white male is glorified, then
everything else seems secondary and not as desirable, not as powerful, or
105

Participant Participant quote
convincing. But I know this is really vague because to be honest with you,
I’m not the perfect example because I haven’t had success in my career in
fashion, so it’s hard for me to pinpoint specific things. All I can say is that I
think the doors would probably have been open more if there weren't specific
biases attached to being a brown immigrant woman.

What happened for me right after I had my fashion show, I received, it was
approximately anywhere between three to five emails a day for about two
years from photographers, you name it, of people wanting to borrow my
collection for a photo shoot and for things. I never lent it out. And the reason
I didn’t do it is because first of all, my whole collection was white silk, so if I
lent it to someone, the minute some lipstick got on it, it was ruined. And I
knew it wasn’t worth it. And secondly, I was between London and LA at the
time. I didn’t have a studio. I had no way of producing the collection. I had
no way of taking that anywhere. So, it didn’t make any sense to me to put it
out there and then have it just go flat. It really would have just been for them,
not for me. So, I think maybe the situation would have been different if I
were a native and I had space in London and I could do something with it.
But it was a complicated time of emigrating back to the U.S. and being
between the U.S. and London. So, I didn't loan it out.

Helena No. Not really. I guess it’s just mostly with him because I haven’t had any guys
work at my new place. So, it’s just also my old manager talking about her
favorite gay assistant. Yeah. I guess that’s it. I don't know.

I don’t know. Just how to be better at it. I wish we did it in school and like met
people, because it seems like Otis has so many connections. It’s like, I wish
we were able to talk to more people. And the mentor thing was great, but it's
like, I don't think we really got to know each other. Like, I think we could
have learned more from them or like built better connections with them too.
It’s like, we just did this project and then they disappeared. But I wish like it
could have been more useful in another way.

Irene I think my goals were to figure out how to navigate the industry because there
was so much of it that I was not interested in participating in. Being born and
raised on Kauai, I certainly did not have access to so much of what is typical
in fashion and just that cosmopolitan connection that I felt like is so prevalent
when people first think of fashion. I definitely remember folks giving me a
once-over and being like, “Huh. Fashion. Okay. Well, good luck with that.”

Yeah. I graduated from CCA, in the Bay Area. I actually, I think, like everyone,
was like, “Cool! Now what?” So, I moved back home, obviously, to pay off
the debt that I had accrued and figure out where I was going to go from there.
After a year of being here and basically just being focused on paying off my
106

Participant Participant quote
debt and trying to see what was going to be next, I ended up getting offered a
job through a connection at my college that recommended me to my first
employer. So, I ended up moving back to the Bay Area a year later, and that's
how I got my first job.

Goodness. I think that it provided me with a network of people, first and
foremost, that have really helped me throughout my career.

107

Appendix F: Participant Quotes on The Male Genius
Participant Participant quote
Sarah Looking back, I don’t know if I had strong career goals. I was just riding the
train of where it was going, and I really wanted to work for well-known
designer brands. And from there, I don’t think I thought much beyond where
that was going to lead.

Fashion in the last year and a half has been hit really hard so a lot of people
have been laid off or. … And so, I feel there’s not much out there in terms
of opportunity.

I have seen him berate these women at an executive level to the point where he
reduces them and cuts their self-esteem and self-confidence down to the
point where they’re mid-50 something year old women crumbling and
crying outside the building.

Victoria I thought it was cool, but it is a little bit ridiculous that this handicraft that has
been done by women for millennia is more celebrated when it’s being
created, or worn, by a man. If it was the first time I had ever seen that
happening, I might have been a little more annoyed, but it’s not the first
time.

Catherine I decided to quit. I mean, kind of going back to the class part, my parents were
like, ‘You can come home. That’s fine. Take a break and regroup and
everything.’’ So, I did, because that was an option for me.

To prove my validity in the room and how much harder I had to think about
what I had to wear to each meeting to make sure that I was professional
enough, looked grown up enough, looked authoritarian, but then was still
welcoming, and they would be willing to work with me.

It was just a lot of work, because certain people at the company that all the
brands would share, so there were shared project managers and production
managers, and quite a few of them had left, and the company decided not to
fill those roles. For me as a brand, I was the entire design, marketing,
everything. … So, I was just spread so thin having to do pretty much
everything.

Agnes I do feel that there’s a few things that maybe we could have learned a little
more stuff about, … learning a little more tech, digital pattern making, stuff
like that would have been a little more helpful too.”

Julia I’ve always thought it was a little bit unusual that some of the greatest
designers … were actually men doing women’s wear, which I think is a
108

Participant Participant quote
little bit strange because women actually get to experience the clothing that
they’re wearing firsthand and there’s this really personal connection.

I think that something being very desirable is the driving force behind fashion.
And when there is a racial bias, I think that sometimes talent can be
overlooked because when the white male is glorified, then everything else
seems secondary and not as desirable.

I really did not want to be studying. I wanted to go see the fashion show and it
made sense to me that maybe this is a career path. That way I could be doing
my work and enjoy it at the same time. So that was the deciding moment.

I think everything that I’ve done in my life, going to a fancy art college,
moving back and forth between here and Brazil and moving to Paris,
moving to London, getting a masters, there’s no way I could have done any
of that without the support of my parents.

Helena I feel like I was given additional responsibilities first and then they were like,
okay, we’re going to promote you. But that’s why I was feeling like I didn’t
get promoted soon enough because it felt like I was doing way, way more.

Monica I was really trying to get them to understand what females feel. And in the
scope of that, or how you go to the bathroom, or how your bra sits, just
technical things. Dresses didn’t have openings, or you just couldn’t get into
them, or they were too tight, just not seaming.

Irene Moving up the ladder from assistant designer to designer to senior designer or
whatever, however companies want to name those things, which is basically
just less busy work and more design freedom and responsibility, making
bigger choices that influence more of the product and product line as you
move up in the career

Abstract (if available)

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Sustainable fashion leadership: The female phenomenon

PDF

Navigating the profession of spine surgery: narratives from women on the front lines

PDF

I am not your mule: intersectional bias against Black female HBCU leaders

PDF

The organizational impacts of executive technology leadership role proliferation

PDF

Racial and gender gaps in executive management: a retrospective examination of the problem cause and strategies to address disparities

PDF

Barriers in care access for the marginalized individual: a provider’s role

PDF

Black women in tech: examining experiences in tech industry workplaces

PDF

Gender disparity in law enforcement

PDF

Underrepresentation of women in the U.S. banking industry’s top executive roles: why doesn’t the CEO look like me?

PDF

School district leadership and the motherhood penalty

PDF

Secrets from the C-suite: women leaders on the bridging gap

PDF

Shattering the status quo: women in cannabis entrepreneurship

PDF

Gender barriers towards women on the career path and within executive leadership

PDF

Gender inequity and leadership in the large state militia: an innovation study

PDF

The impact of cultural wealth and role models on the transformation of an individual’s future self

PDF

Examining the lack of equity in leadership opportunities for underrepresented employees in the pharmaceutical industry

PDF

The underrepresentation of African Americans in information technology: an examination of social capital and its impact on African Americans’ career success

PDF

Cultural wealth exploration of Black female executives and its additive value in STEM corporations: a cultural historical activity theory (CHAT) analysis

PDF

Information technology architects’ shift to remote work: an exploration of collaboration challenges

PDF

The field of Los Angeles urban art: gendered stereotyping and opportunities for change

Asset Metadata

Creator Salvador, Natalie (author)

Core Title Averting the gaze: gender bias in the fashion industry

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Organizational Change and Leadership (On Line)

Degree Conferral Date 2022-08

Publication Date 07/25/2022

Defense Date 07/25/2022

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag fashion design,fashion industry,gender bias,gender roles,gendered creativity,OAI-PMH Harvest,post-secondary education,social role theory

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Datta, Monique (committee chair), Maddox, Anthony (committee member), Martinez, Brandon (committee member)

Creator Email nsalvador@usc.edu,salvadornatalie@gmail.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-oUC111375390

Unique identifier UC111375390

Legacy Identifier etd-SalvadorNa-10974

Document Type Dissertation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Salvador, Natalie

Type texts

Source 20220728-usctheses-batch-962 (batch), University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the author, as the original true and official version of the work, but does not grant the reader permission to use the work if the desired use is covered by copyright. It is the author, as rights holder, who must provide use permission if such use is covered by copyright. The original signature page accompanying the original submission of the work to the USC Libraries is retained by the USC Libraries and a copy of it may be obtained by authorized requesters contacting the repository e-mail address given.

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA

Repository Email cisadmin@lib.usc.edu