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.

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, 2011
1

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 CCAS's 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/year
Design:
• 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 leaders
Data 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 Seminars
Feb 2010 July 2010
l Oct 2010 Feb 2011
b
Observe 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 Seminars
July 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 evaluations
October 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
4.5
1=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
3
1=Ex
Series1
July Deans
July Chairs
Series2
Oct Chairs
Series3

9. Comments from Evaluations
f
JULY
• 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 doesn't.
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 play
Building 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 Men
Prime, 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 Gain
as a Result of Gender Inequality
as a Result of Gender Inequality from Gender Equity
from Gender Equity
BRAINSTORM

18. Next Steps
Next Steps
Key Content Areas
Key Content Areas
1. Micro‐inequities
2. Unconscious biases
3. Personal costs of gender inequity for both
women and men
Embed in Session on Leadership
Key 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