Gender Equity and Slow Adopters    Changing Academic Culture via “Leadership Development”                      Lucinda Huf...
Presentation Outline  Presentation Outline• Relevant background about our   ADVANCE project• Initial results and analysis•...
Some Project Background                   j        g•   ADVANCE PAID project: Promoting Institutional Transformation     t...
Goal:    To cultivate academic leaders who are more knowledgeable about STEM          gender equity issues, more able and ...
Department Chairs & New Deans Seminars   Department Chairs & New Deans SeminarsFeb 2010   July 2010             l         ...
Department Chairs & New Deans Seminars    Department Chairs & New Deans SeminarsJuly 2010 Results    • Evaluations of Impl...
Session on Implicit Bias                                                  Session on Implicit Bias                        ...
Session on Implicit Bias                                             Session on Implicit Bias                             ...
Comments from Evaluations                    fJULY• Great presenter! Well organized, excellent content. • Well presented, ...
Comments from Surveys           Comments from Surveys• These can be very sticky questions.  I have also seen minority   me...
• Data is old; problem no longer exists  Data is old; problem no longer exists• Not enough time• Not persuaded of implicit...
“I’ve learned from my mistakes.            I’m sure I could repeat them exactly.”           I’         I   ld      t th   ...
New Resources                      Models of Change                        d l f h                         Appreciative In...
Engaging Men in Gender Initiatives                       Catalyst Research Reports                                Research...
Strategies for Breaking Barriers                    to Men’s Engagement        3 Barriers         1. Apathy (unconcern)  7...
Costs of Gender Bias & Benefits of              Gender Equity to MenPrime, Jeanine, and Corinne A. Moss‐Racusin. “Engaging...
Reframing             Costs                         Benefits What Deans and Chairs Lose        What Deans and Chairs Gaina...
Next Steps               Next StepsKey Content AreasKey Content Areas  1. Micro‐inequities  2. Unconscious biases  3. Pers...
List as many intersections with gender bias/diversity as possible in 3 minutes.Chairs:                         Chairs:–Man...
Acknowledgments   Joyce Yen, PhD, Program/Research Manager   NSF ADVANCE Program   Acknowledgement of Support and Disclaim...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5

Gender Equity and Slow Adopters: Changing Academic Culture via "Leadership Development"


Published on

This presentation emerges from an attempt to impact academic culture for gender equity in STEM on a large scale by working through a professional academic organization for deans. Importantly, the work targets non-self-selecting audiences, i.e., participants who have paid for “leadership development,” not “diversity awareness”; thus topics like ”unconscious bias” and “gender equity” are viewed with suspicion. Also significant is the gender ratio at higher levels of academic leadership; our audiences have ranged from 50:50 to 5:1, male to female. Hence, we engage a significant number of “slow adopters” of STEM diversity initiatives, i.e., high-ranking white males who do not view gender or diversity issues as meriting high priority. The goal is a presentation strategy (theory, method, and content) that will deliver gender equity content to inform, equip, and motivate participants to effect positive change in their institutional settings. This is a report of an ADVANCE project-in-progress that is learning from mistakes, working within constraints, and discovering new resources as we gain clarity about underlying issues and barriers to success. Best practices from Appreciative Inquiry, the Concerns-Based Adoption Model, Catalyst’s Engaging Men in Gender Initiatives, and material from gender equity and diversity programs are all informing our redesign of professional development seminars. This presentation will include examples from workshops, participant evaluations, and program designs as a means of stimulating discussion about methods for “marketing” gender equity in STEM to academic leaders with a range of personal commitments to equity issues who nevertheless have substantial authority to shape academic culture.

  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Gender Equity and Slow Adopters: Changing Academic Culture via "Leadership Development"

  1. 1. Gender Equity and Slow Adopters Changing Academic Culture via “Leadership Development” Lucinda Huffaker, PhD Program/Research Manager CCAS ADVANCE Initiative University of Northern Colorado February 18, 20111
  2. 2. Presentation Outline Presentation Outline• Relevant background about our  ADVANCE project• Initial results and analysis• New resources New resources• Reframing• Next steps
  3. 3. Some Project Background j g• ADVANCE PAID project: Promoting Institutional Transformation  through a National Deans’ Association• Council of Colleges of Arts and Sciences (CCAS)• Adapts University of Washington’s (UW)  successful Leadership  Excellence for Academic Diversity (LEAD) program ◦ Leadership workshops for administrators and faculty leaders  2007‐09 ◦ Gender equity (GE) content integrated into leadership  development topics development topics ◦ Educating about implicit bias is fundamental• Extends the model of effecting change from  g g institution‐based to organization‐based
  4. 4. Goal:    To cultivate academic leaders who are more knowledgeable about STEM  gender equity issues, more able and motivated to address those issues, and  gender equity issues, more able and motivated to address those issues, and thus better positioned to effect positive transformational change in their own  colleges and departments.Problem: (How to) infuse gender equity content and activities into CCASs existing (How to) infuse gender equity content and activities into CCAS s existing  professional development programs in a sustainable way.Focus:      2½‐day Seminar for New Deans ‐ one offering, 40 people/year 2 day Seminar for Department Chairs  three offerings, 120 people/year 2‐day Seminar for Department Chairs ‐ three offerings, 120 people/yearDesign: • Integrate GE content into several existing sessions  • Add an implicit bias session based on the Implicit Association Test (IAT)  • Utilize case studies with GE content Utilize case studies with GE content • Supply GE resources and references • Create training materials for Seminar leadersData Collection:   • Content analysis of Seminar materials • Pre‐Seminar web‐survey of GE attitudes • Seminar evaluation forms • Trained observers • Interviews with Seminar leaders • Post‐Seminar (12 mo) web‐survey of GE attitudes/behaviors 
  5. 5. Department Chairs & New Deans Seminars Department Chairs & New Deans SeminarsFeb 2010 July 2010 l Oct 2010 Feb 2011 bObserve Pre/Post 1‐hr Insert Embed in  Opening Case Study Case Study Case Study Case Study Case Studies Resources Resources Resources Action Plan Action Plan Action Plan Action Plan* Encourage Train Staff* Staff Staff Review Recent CCAS seminar Source:  CCAS Executive Office 
  6. 6. Department Chairs & New Deans Seminars Department Chairs & New Deans SeminarsJuly 2010 Results • Evaluations of Implicit Bias pre/post‐sessions were excellent…but only Evaluations of Implicit Bias pre/post sessions were excellent…but only  40% attended • All facilitators used case study as requested; received some positive  feedback from participants…but didn’t address GE content to extent we  had hoped • Little unplanned GE content mentioned by leaders , but more occurred  when prompted by ADVANCE personnel • 5/31 “Taking it Home” plans mentioned GE or diversity 5/31  Taking it Home plans mentioned GE or diversity • Nothing about GE mentioned in evaluationsOctober 2010 Results • Very similar to July result (i.e., little mention of GE), except in  session on Recruitment, AND • Scathing feedback on implicit bias session
  7. 7. Session on Implicit Bias Session on Implicit Bias Amount of Information & Degree of Awareness rage, 5=Excellent 5 4.75 4.51=Extremely Poor, 3=Aver 4.25 4 3.75 3.5 3.25 3 Series1 July Deans July Chairs Series2 Oct Chairs Series3
  8. 8. Session on Implicit Bias Session on Implicit Bias Relevance to Professional Tasks 5 Average, 5=Excellent 4.75 4.5 4.25 4 xtremely Poor, 3=A 3.75 3.5 3.25 31=Ex Series1 July Deans July Chairs Series2 Oct Chairs Series3
  9. 9. Comments from Evaluations fJULY• Great presenter! Well organized, excellent content. • Well presented, enlightening, nice open atmosphere• Excellent integration of research, interaction (demos, test, etc) and lecture.  g ( )• Well designed and delivered. Really pointed out/taught a lot. • I learned I may be using different yardsticks for men and women, in spite of trying very hard not to do so. • The visuals and experience were particularly compelling.OCTOBER• Seminar should not preach to us. Especially not to people in an academic setting where social justice and diversity issues  are well established.• Nothing new here.• The structure was very out of date. This was astonishing to me – completed unacceptable. And your seminar should not  preach to us. Especially not to people in an academic setting where social justice and diversity issues are well established.• I understand the need to focus on STEM because of grant, but it does leave out the rest of us. d d h d f S b f b i d l h f• Interesting but seemed rather pedestrian for academics—the research was from very different eras and a lot has changed .• Bias compromises an institution’s credibility; institutions must adopt management strategies to deal with it.• Seminar should not promote social justice – for one reason because it should not promote anything except skills for being  an effective chair. Besides, you are preaching to the choir – we already thoroughly understand the need for diversity.• The issue is more complicated today than only men and women. Biases include sexual preferences, tattoos, dreadlocks.  • Clearly, from the follow up discussion, there is a need for chairs to attend to their unexamined biases.• Needs to include more recent data.• Did not cover much due to time constraints.• This is poor science.• Good topic, poor presentation; not argued well enough to prove the points.
  10. 10. Comments from Surveys Comments from Surveys• These can be very sticky questions.  I have also seen minority  members bully white male faculty in academic settings.• Given the numerous problems on my campus, and the numerous  priorities we have, I’m not sure it would be effective to add yet  another priority.  Surveys show that the most unhappy segment of  another priority Surveys show that the most unhappy segment of our faculty is far and away male professors under 50. y• I think women have it better than minorities at my institution.• We’ve been burdened by a series of spousal hires that have  undermined the balance of our academic program; in some of  those cases I’d say academic priorities should have come first. th I’d d i i iti h ld h fi t• Gender equity should not be a priority because it does not  p g p represent a significant problem.  
  11. 11. • Data is old; problem no longer exists Data is old; problem no longer exists• Not enough time• Not persuaded of implicit bias (poor science) d d f i li i bi ( i ) “I’ve learned from my mistakes.   I’m sure I could repeat them exactly.”  Peter Cook, British comedian
  12. 12. “I’ve learned from my mistakes.   I’m sure I could repeat them exactly.”  I’ I ld t th tl ” Peter Cook, British comedian Some Challenges S Ch ll• Seamless integration of GE content with existing programs• Providing support, but relying on volunteer program facilitators to  introduce GE content i d GE• Making the case that bias exists• Providing useful content to audiences with a range of exposure and  interest in GE i t t i GE Some Questions• Is it gender, or is it diversity? g y• Is it STEM, or is it academia?• How to ensure someone raises the GE questions, given ‐ volunteer leadership, ‐ no training, ‐ no curriculum?
  13. 13. New Resources Models of Change d l f h Appreciative Inquiry The basic idea is to create change by focusing on what works,  rather than trying to fix what doesnt. When those who are seeking to implement change “shrug  off opposition as ignorance and prejudice, they express a  profound contempt for the meaning of lives other than  their own.”            Peter Marris, Loss and Change, 1975, p. 166 Concerns‐Based Adoption Model (CBAM)People considering and experiencing change evolve in the kinds of questions they ask and what they’re willing to do.
  14. 14. Engaging Men in Gender Initiatives Catalyst Research Reports Research Reports How do men come to recognize gender bias? Higher awareness of gender bias is linked to  1. Defiance of some masculine norms 2. Having women mentors 3. A strong sense of fair playBuilding a compelling case—what matters most to men:   1. Their perception of how interested other administrators/faculty in their  1 Th i i fh i d h d i i /f l i h i context are in GE. Leverage influential administrators or faculty. 2. Impact they perceive GE could have on building community. Appeal to  men’s “higher” ideals. g 3. How relevant GE is to their current position.  Align content with job  responsibilities; GE awareness can improve performance. 4. Whether GE is a zero‐sum initiative.   Communicate the personal benefits to men. Communicate the personal benefits to men
  15. 15. Strategies for Breaking Barriers to Men’s Engagement  3 Barriers 1. Apathy (unconcern)  74% 1 A th ( ) 2. Fear (loss of status, making mistakes, other men’s disapproval) 74% 3. Real and perceived ignorance 51%Prime, Jeanine, and Corinne A. Moss‐Racusin. “Engaging Men in Gender Initiatives: What Change Agents Need to Know.” Catalyst, May 2009. 
  16. 16. Costs of Gender Bias & Benefits of  Gender Equity to MenPrime, Jeanine, and Corinne A. Moss‐Racusin. “Engaging Men in Gender Initiatives: What Change Agents Need to Know.” Catalyst, May 2009. 
  17. 17. Reframing Costs Benefits What Deans and Chairs Lose  What Deans and Chairs Gainas a Result of Gender Inequalityas a Result of Gender Inequality from Gender Equity from Gender Equity BRAINSTORM
  18. 18. Next Steps Next StepsKey Content AreasKey Content Areas 1. Micro‐inequities 2. Unconscious biases 3. Personal costs of gender inequity for both  women and menEmbed in Session on LeadershipKey to Making Good Decisions
  19. 19. List as many intersections with gender bias/diversity as possible in 3 minutes.Chairs: Chairs:–Managing people and conflict –Chair as academic leader–Development (Fund‐raising) –Dealing with students–Working with the dean Working with the dean –Budgets Budgets–Taking care of yourself Deans: –Shaping & organizing college operations –Working with the Provost Working with the Provost –Seeking and managing resources Deans: –Legal issues –The unionized environment –Strategic planning –Consortia, centers, and institutes Consortia centers and institutes
  20. 20. Acknowledgments Joyce Yen, PhD, Program/Research Manager NSF ADVANCE Program Acknowledgement of Support and Disclaimer This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. 0930138.  Any  opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do  not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation. 20