1. Knowledge of Gender Equity among Faith-Based Universities in Texas Rachel Slaymaker, LMSW Stephanie Hamm, MSW, PhD Abilene Christian University

2. Definitions Unconscious Bias - “systematic errors in judgment that are due to cognitive processes rather than conscious decisions” (Shields, Zawadski, & Johnson, 2011, p. 120) Inequity - “treatment (such as work evaluation, raises, or access to professional opportunity) that is not commensurate with one’s ability or accomplishments” (Shields, Zawadski, & Johnson, 2011, p. 121)

3. Definitions Sexism - “individual’s attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors, and organizational, institutional, and cultural practices that either reflect negative evaluations of individuals based on their gender or support unequal status of women and men” (Swim & Hyers, 2009, p. 407) Zawadski, Shields, Duanbe, & Swim (2014) include:  oppressive stereotypes;  unequal pay and advancement rates;  sexual harassment.

4. Review of Current Literature: Status of Women in Academia Advancement for women  Earn less than men in academia  Less represented in certain disciplines (JD, MD, STEM)  Less represented in leadership/research  Are less likely to have tenure in the same amount of time as men  Are less likely to move from associate to full professor than men

5. Review of Current Literature: Status of Women in Academia Systematic Barriers  Disparities in publication rates  More service/teaching responsibilities versus research  Lack of mentoring for women  Increased demands in family and academic life

6. Review of Current Literature: Status of Women in Academia Historical/Cultural Issues  Institutions originally founded by and for males  Benevolent sexism  Sanctified sexism

7. Review of Current Literature: Gender Bias/Inequity Training  Focus on STEM disciplines  Lack of gender diversity  Ineffective training Types of trainings:  ‘Bias literacy’ training  Assertiveness/Negotiation training  Mentoring (formal versus informal)  Experiential activity  WAGES Workshop Activity for Gender Equity Simulation

8. The Current Study Methodology Sample: Faculty of 7 faith-based Institutions in Texas Data gathering: Emailed 1357 faculty members; n=205 Measurement: Knowledge of Gender Equity Scale -Shields, Zawadzki & Johnson, 2011; Zappe 2006, as cited in Zawadzki, Danube & Shields, 2012

9. The Current Study Findings The majority of the sample was: ❏ Tenured (n=85) ❏ Doctorate level (n=139) ❏ 6-15 years of full-time teaching (n=53) ❏ Caucasian (n=154) ❏ Over 46 years old (n=89) ❏ Full professors (n=57) This sample was almost equally male (n=88) and female (n=87).

10. The Current Study Findings

11. Overall mean Knowledge of Gender Equity Scale (KGES) score for the sample was 3.52. t-tests and one-way ANOVAs: Race, rank, school, prevalence of training, level of education, academic discipline, age, and length of time in higher education all yielded no significant difference in KGES scores. This included tests on recoded variables.

12. The Current Study Findings Significant differences in KGES scores: ➢ Females scored significantly higher than males on knowledge of gender equity @p=.000 ➢ Non-tenured faculty scored significantly higher than tenured faculty @p=.005

13. Other Study Findings Tenured in this sample: ➢ 64% of the males were tenured ➢ 34% of females were tenured KGES Reliability: ➢ For this sample 90% internal consistency

14. Discussion of these Findings... Women scored significantly higher than men on the KGES + Non-tenured faculty scored significantly higher than tenured faculty on the KGES = Majority of the women were non-tenured!

15. Discussion of these Findings... Interesting Data based on the literature: ➔ no difference across disciplines ➔ no difference in STEM vs non-STEM ➔ no difference by training ➔ Inverse relationship between knowledge and tenure

16. Implications for Institutions of Higher Education o Men participating in training o Formal mentoring for junior faculty-across gender lines o Eliminate “women-centered” approaches o Identify subtle sexism o Address “benevolent sexism” o Rely less on sexual harassment training o Engage high level admin buy-in and involvement o Require accurate communication -Bird (2011)

17. Implications for Future Training Understand faith-based institutions’ prevalence of “sanctified sexism” (Lewis Hall, Christerson, & Cunningham, 2010)  Women are to be nice, accommodating, and taken care of  Men are to be chivalrous and in charge Utilize WAGES (workshop activity for gender equity simulation)  Include all disciplines within academia  Distinct differences between gender bias/inequity and sexual harassment

18. Conclusion Next Time… EBP training Larger sample Broader faith tradition Compare faith-based with non faith-based institutions No other research on faith-based institutions

19. Questions? Comments? Musings? stephanie.hamm@acu.edu rachel.slaymaker@acu.edu

20. References Bird, S. R. (2011). Unsettling universities’ incongruous, gendered bureaucratic structures: a case-study approach. Gender, Work and Organization, 18(2), 202-230, doi:10.1111/j.1468-0432.2009.00510.x Easterly, D.M., & Ricard, C.S. (2011). Conscious efforts to end unconscious bias: Why women leave academic research. Journal of Research Administration, XLII(1), 61-73. Lewis Hall, M.E., Christerson, B., & Cunningham, S. (2010). Sanctified sexism: Religious beliefs and the gender harassment of academic women. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 34(2), 181-185.doi: 10.1111/j.1471- 6402.2010.01560.x. Shields, S.A., Zawadzki, M.J., & Johnson, R.N. (2011). The impact of the Workshop Activity for Gender Equity Simulation in the Academy (WAGES-Academic) in demonstrating cumulative effects of gender bias. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 4(2), 120-129. Swim, J.K., & Hyers, L.L. (2009). Sexism. In T.D. Nelson (Ed.), Handbook of prejudice, stereotyping and discrimination. (pp. 407-430). New York, NY: Psychology Press. Zappe, S. E. (2006). Analysis of the “Understanding of Gender Inequality Issues and Sexual Harassment Scale.” Unpublished manuscript, Department of Psychology, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA. Zawadzki, M.J., Danube, C.L., & Shields, S.A. (2012). How to talk about gender inequity in the workplace: Using WAGES as an experiential learning tool to reduce reactance and promote self-efficacy. Sex Roles, 67(11/12), 605-616. doi: 10.1007/s11199-012-0181 Zawadzki, M.J., Shields, S.A., Danube, C.L., & Swim, J.K. (2014). Reducing the endorsement of sexism using experiential learning: The Workshop Activity for Gender Equity Simulation (WAGES). Psychology of Women Quarterly, 38(1), 75-9. doi: 10.1177/0361684313498573