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.
Presentation Outline Presentation Outline• Relevant background about our ADVANCE project• Initial results and analysis• New resources New resources• Reframing• Next steps

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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
• 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.
“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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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