Allyship in the university setting: supporting women's success

Elisabeth R. Silver, Isabel Bilotta, Dillon Stewart, Jazmin Argueta-Rivera, Christiane Spitzmueller, Hayley Brown, Eden King, Mikki R. Hebl
{"title":"Allyship in the university setting: supporting women's success","authors":"Elisabeth R. Silver, Isabel Bilotta, Dillon Stewart, Jazmin Argueta-Rivera, Christiane Spitzmueller, Hayley Brown, Eden King, Mikki R. Hebl","doi":"10.1108/edi-08-2023-0267","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"PurposeThe lack of progress toward equity in the U.S. is evident across many spheres of society, academia notwithstanding. Women academicians, in particular, face many barriers that prevent them from advancing–including a continued unsupportive climate, competing work and family demands, and interpersonal discrimination. This paper reflects on a collaborative research effort in the United States to enhance allyship for women in academia.Design/methodology/approachThe authors partnered with a major university to hold ally training for department chairs during a university-wide department chair meeting. The authors developed a methodology for creating and implementing training content using a focus-group-based training needs analysis and a diversity science grounded approach to allyship training. The authors followed this up with surveys to assess impact.FindingsParticipants indicated that they learned from the training, but participation in follow-up data collection was limited, hampering the ability to conduct rigorous quantitative analyses around intervention impact.Research limitations/implicationsAlthough the sample size may have been too limited to detect effects, the current study provides an approach that furthers the way in which researchers and practitioners can better assess the impact of allyship to women academicians.Practical implicationsPublished research on allies is very limited. The current research examines allies in the context of helping women in academia.Originality/valueDespite widespread recognition of the importance of first-line supervisors in support of diversity, limited intervention designs are available. The authors add to the extant literature on diversity interventions, while highlighting barriers to rigorous intervention evaluation.","PeriodicalId":503114,"journal":{"name":"Equality, Diversity and Inclusion: An International Journal","volume":" 62","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Equality, Diversity and Inclusion: An International Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/edi-08-2023-0267","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

PurposeThe lack of progress toward equity in the U.S. is evident across many spheres of society, academia notwithstanding. Women academicians, in particular, face many barriers that prevent them from advancing–including a continued unsupportive climate, competing work and family demands, and interpersonal discrimination. This paper reflects on a collaborative research effort in the United States to enhance allyship for women in academia.Design/methodology/approachThe authors partnered with a major university to hold ally training for department chairs during a university-wide department chair meeting. The authors developed a methodology for creating and implementing training content using a focus-group-based training needs analysis and a diversity science grounded approach to allyship training. The authors followed this up with surveys to assess impact.FindingsParticipants indicated that they learned from the training, but participation in follow-up data collection was limited, hampering the ability to conduct rigorous quantitative analyses around intervention impact.Research limitations/implicationsAlthough the sample size may have been too limited to detect effects, the current study provides an approach that furthers the way in which researchers and practitioners can better assess the impact of allyship to women academicians.Practical implicationsPublished research on allies is very limited. The current research examines allies in the context of helping women in academia.Originality/valueDespite widespread recognition of the importance of first-line supervisors in support of diversity, limited intervention designs are available. The authors add to the extant literature on diversity interventions, while highlighting barriers to rigorous intervention evaluation.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
大学环境中的盟友关系:支持女性成功
目的美国在实现公平方面缺乏进展,这在社会的许多领域都很明显,学术界也不例外。尤其是女学者,她们面临着许多阻碍其进步的障碍--包括持续的不支持氛围、工作和家庭需求之间的竞争以及人际歧视。作者与一所重点大学合作,在全校系主任会议期间为系主任举办了盟友培训。作者利用基于焦点小组的培训需求分析和基于多样性科学的盟友关系培训方法,制定了一套创建和实施培训内容的方法。研究局限/启示虽然样本量可能过于有限,无法检测出效果,但目前的研究提供了一种方法,有助于研究人员和从业人员更好地评估盟友关系对女院士的影响。尽管人们普遍认识到一线主管在支持多元化方面的重要性,但可用的干预设计却非常有限。作者对现有的多样性干预文献进行了补充,同时强调了严格的干预评估所面临的障碍。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
The only daughters effect: examining the relationship between child gender and a CEO’s hiring decisions “They kill us mentally”: exploring microaggression towards LGBTQIA+ employees in Indian workplaces From mandate to co-create: leading the development of inclusive performance evaluation criteria Leader responses to a pandemic: the interaction of leader gender and country collectivism predicting pandemic deaths Do dominant groups respond negatively to diversity policies? The impact of modern racism beliefs on organizational citizenship behavior intentions
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1