Engaging Men Faculty in Creating Equity for Women STEM Faculty in Academia

WEPAN National Conference

S Alestalo, K Alford, D Cutler, Shobha K Bhatia, Ruhlandt-Senge

Research output: Contribution to conferencePaper

Abstract

Equity for women engineering faculty is often considered a women’s problem with solutions coming
from women to profit women. Campus transformation leaders must challenge the assumption only
women can lead transformation and that the benefits only accrue to women (Stewart, et al. 2010) for
sustainable change to be made. Therefore it is important to build the case for faculty (women and men)
action. (University Leadership Council 2008). Clearly, equity cannot be achieved without men faculty.
Focus groups were conducted at Syracuse University (SU) to help answer the question; what brings men
faculty to the table as equally inspired transformation leaders?  
To understand the men STEM faculty’s thoughts regarding equity and inclusion focus groups were
conducted at SU in 2009. Using information from the 2009 Catalyst report by Prime, et al., “Engaging
Men in Gender Initiatives: What Change Agents Need to Know,” a series of questions were designed to
facilitate discussion with SU men and women faculty members in two‐hour, single‐sex groups. A total of
eleven men (two groups) and eight women (one group) faculty from thirteen science and engineering
departments participated in the focus groups.   
Findings can be categorized from individual, departmental and leadership perspectives. Men faculty
were motivated by institutional competiveness, the fit in terms of values, as well as personal
experiences with partners and children. Many of the men participants held or were currently in
leadership positions. These individuals found that the departments did not hold people accountable,
encourage community thinking, nor reward positive behavior. Men faculty leaders found that
addressing the barriers for men’s involvement in fostering equity is not part of leadership training. They
asked; how do they create an inclusive departmental environment? Is my own lack of awareness
contributing to the problem? Women faculty in their focus group noted that departments that function
as a whole not as individuals were more competitive and productive. Building men faculty awareness of
how the current status quo limits departments was considered to be important. Engaging men
engineering faculty in collaboratively building environments that unleash the power of inclusive talent is
essential to the competitive future of engineering departments.  
Original languageEnglish (US)
StatePublished - 2011

Fingerprint

equity
Group
leadership
leader
engineering
reward
profit
inclusion
lack
gender
science
community
Values

Cite this

Engaging Men Faculty in Creating Equity for Women STEM Faculty in Academia : WEPAN National Conference. / Alestalo, S; Alford, K; Cutler, D; Bhatia, Shobha K; Ruhlandt-Senge.

2011.

Research output: Contribution to conferencePaper

@conference{429c6d0c89da405e9aa96433dd257743,
title = "Engaging Men Faculty in Creating Equity for Women STEM Faculty in Academia: WEPAN National Conference",
abstract = "Equity for women engineering faculty is often considered a women’s problem with solutions comingfrom women to profit women. Campus transformation leaders must challenge the assumption onlywomen can lead transformation and that the benefits only accrue to women (Stewart, et al. 2010) forsustainable change to be made. Therefore it is important to build the case for faculty (women and men)action. (University Leadership Council 2008). Clearly, equity cannot be achieved without men faculty.Focus groups were conducted at Syracuse University (SU) to help answer the question; what brings menfaculty to the table as equally inspired transformation leaders?  To understand the men STEM faculty’s thoughts regarding equity and inclusion focus groups wereconducted at SU in 2009. Using information from the 2009 Catalyst report by Prime, et al., “EngagingMen in Gender Initiatives: What Change Agents Need to Know,” a series of questions were designed tofacilitate discussion with SU men and women faculty members in two‐hour, single‐sex groups. A total ofeleven men (two groups) and eight women (one group) faculty from thirteen science and engineeringdepartments participated in the focus groups.   Findings can be categorized from individual, departmental and leadership perspectives. Men facultywere motivated by institutional competiveness, the fit in terms of values, as well as personalexperiences with partners and children. Many of the men participants held or were currently inleadership positions. These individuals found that the departments did not hold people accountable,encourage community thinking, nor reward positive behavior. Men faculty leaders found thataddressing the barriers for men’s involvement in fostering equity is not part of leadership training. Theyasked; how do they create an inclusive departmental environment? Is my own lack of awarenesscontributing to the problem? Women faculty in their focus group noted that departments that functionas a whole not as individuals were more competitive and productive. Building men faculty awareness ofhow the current status quo limits departments was considered to be important. Engaging menengineering faculty in collaboratively building environments that unleash the power of inclusive talent isessential to the competitive future of engineering departments.  ",
author = "S Alestalo and K Alford and D Cutler and Bhatia, {Shobha K} and Ruhlandt-Senge",
year = "2011",
language = "English (US)",

}

TY - CONF

T1 - Engaging Men Faculty in Creating Equity for Women STEM Faculty in Academia

T2 - WEPAN National Conference

AU - Alestalo, S

AU - Alford, K

AU - Cutler, D

AU - Bhatia, Shobha K

AU - Ruhlandt-Senge,

PY - 2011

Y1 - 2011

N2 - Equity for women engineering faculty is often considered a women’s problem with solutions comingfrom women to profit women. Campus transformation leaders must challenge the assumption onlywomen can lead transformation and that the benefits only accrue to women (Stewart, et al. 2010) forsustainable change to be made. Therefore it is important to build the case for faculty (women and men)action. (University Leadership Council 2008). Clearly, equity cannot be achieved without men faculty.Focus groups were conducted at Syracuse University (SU) to help answer the question; what brings menfaculty to the table as equally inspired transformation leaders?  To understand the men STEM faculty’s thoughts regarding equity and inclusion focus groups wereconducted at SU in 2009. Using information from the 2009 Catalyst report by Prime, et al., “EngagingMen in Gender Initiatives: What Change Agents Need to Know,” a series of questions were designed tofacilitate discussion with SU men and women faculty members in two‐hour, single‐sex groups. A total ofeleven men (two groups) and eight women (one group) faculty from thirteen science and engineeringdepartments participated in the focus groups.   Findings can be categorized from individual, departmental and leadership perspectives. Men facultywere motivated by institutional competiveness, the fit in terms of values, as well as personalexperiences with partners and children. Many of the men participants held or were currently inleadership positions. These individuals found that the departments did not hold people accountable,encourage community thinking, nor reward positive behavior. Men faculty leaders found thataddressing the barriers for men’s involvement in fostering equity is not part of leadership training. Theyasked; how do they create an inclusive departmental environment? Is my own lack of awarenesscontributing to the problem? Women faculty in their focus group noted that departments that functionas a whole not as individuals were more competitive and productive. Building men faculty awareness ofhow the current status quo limits departments was considered to be important. Engaging menengineering faculty in collaboratively building environments that unleash the power of inclusive talent isessential to the competitive future of engineering departments.  

AB - Equity for women engineering faculty is often considered a women’s problem with solutions comingfrom women to profit women. Campus transformation leaders must challenge the assumption onlywomen can lead transformation and that the benefits only accrue to women (Stewart, et al. 2010) forsustainable change to be made. Therefore it is important to build the case for faculty (women and men)action. (University Leadership Council 2008). Clearly, equity cannot be achieved without men faculty.Focus groups were conducted at Syracuse University (SU) to help answer the question; what brings menfaculty to the table as equally inspired transformation leaders?  To understand the men STEM faculty’s thoughts regarding equity and inclusion focus groups wereconducted at SU in 2009. Using information from the 2009 Catalyst report by Prime, et al., “EngagingMen in Gender Initiatives: What Change Agents Need to Know,” a series of questions were designed tofacilitate discussion with SU men and women faculty members in two‐hour, single‐sex groups. A total ofeleven men (two groups) and eight women (one group) faculty from thirteen science and engineeringdepartments participated in the focus groups.   Findings can be categorized from individual, departmental and leadership perspectives. Men facultywere motivated by institutional competiveness, the fit in terms of values, as well as personalexperiences with partners and children. Many of the men participants held or were currently inleadership positions. These individuals found that the departments did not hold people accountable,encourage community thinking, nor reward positive behavior. Men faculty leaders found thataddressing the barriers for men’s involvement in fostering equity is not part of leadership training. Theyasked; how do they create an inclusive departmental environment? Is my own lack of awarenesscontributing to the problem? Women faculty in their focus group noted that departments that functionas a whole not as individuals were more competitive and productive. Building men faculty awareness ofhow the current status quo limits departments was considered to be important. Engaging menengineering faculty in collaboratively building environments that unleash the power of inclusive talent isessential to the competitive future of engineering departments.  

M3 - Paper

ER -