3.1 Gender Structure Theory

The first frame that we draw upon is Risman’s (2004) gender structure theory. Growing out of Giddens (1984) theory of “structuration”, Risman’s gender structure theory is useful for understanding how gender structure, culture, and practices interconnect simultaneously to perpetuate gender inequality for women in STEM. In describing her theory, Risman (2018) writes,

Gender structure theory provides a conceptual framework for understanding the way gender is re-produced through cultural and material processes taking place at individual, interactional, and macro-dimensions. At the same time, gender structure theory emphasizes how processes at one dimension influence those taking place in another (p. 70).

According to Risman, gender differentially constrains and enables people at three main societal levels: the individual, the interactional, and the macro-organizational. Gender structures shape, constrain, and impact individuals’ actions. Individuals can and do act in ways that challenge the structure, but, as West and Zimmerman (1987) argue, they often “do gender” in ways that reinforce that structure. A diagram of Risman’s model is shown in Figure 1. Here, she illustrates how the gender structure operates across levels.

We apply Risman’s theory to our project in this way: Sex-segregation in STEM is a structural problem, with structural barriers to women’s recruitment, retention and advancement in STEM fields. The devaluation of women is a cultural product, reflecting larger meanings systems about gender. Unconscious bias plays out in interpersonal interactions, whereby women in STEM are made to feel that they do not belong. THRIVE@ECU seeks to disrupt the gender structure at all three levels, thereby creating sustained structural change.

3.2 Feminist Theories of Hegemonic and Ideal Masculinity

The second theoretical frame from which we draw insights as we design an intervention for the unequal gender structure at our university is grounded in feminist theories of men and hegemonic masculinity. In her canonical work on masculinities, Connell (1987) asserted that there is no one way to be a man. Instead, there are multiple masculinities — some of which are more socially valued and impactful than others. Connell explained that one form of masculinity takes supremacy above the rest: hegemonic masculinity — the standard or ideal form of masculinity by which all men are measured and policed. Hegemonically masculine men may exert authority, dominance, and control over women and other men within various spheres of their lives, including the workplace. While men may perform masculinity in various ways, society is structured by gender so as to benefit men as a group. Connell (1995) argues that all men earn “patriarchal dividends” from gender inequality. Hegemonic men may reap greater rewards than other men in terms of respect, income, feelings of safety, and influence. However, because of “the gendered order,” all men accrue some patriarchal dividends regardless of how they enact masculinity or whether they are deemed “successful” in their masculinity. These dividends are accrued interactionally, culturally, and structurally.

In honing the concept of hegemonic masculinity, Connell and Messerschmidt (2005) have explained that the “geography of masculinity” occurs at three levels: 1) Local level of face-to-face interaction; 2) Regional level of culture or nation state; and 3) Global or transnational level. Because we are interested in cultures and practices of masculinity in the workplace, the local level is most relevant to this project. Within the university in general and within STEM departments in particular, hegemonic masculinity may be leveraged for professional and interpersonal gain.

Connell’s work has helped to fuel an entire body of feminist theory of men and masculinities. Building on her work, Schrock and Schwalbe (2009) focus on the ways that hegemonic masculinity is produced in every interactions through what they call “manhood acts:”

To be credited as a man, what an individual male must do […] is put on a convincing manhood act. This requires mastering a set of conventional signifying practices through which the identity “man” is established and upheld in interaction (p. 279).

In the workplace, manhood acts may take the form of “mansplaining” (DeGennaro & Piscopo, 2023), the devaluation of women’s contributions (Davis, et al., 2012), as well acting in ways that serve to block women’s advancement (Stainback & Tomaskovic-Devey, 2009), such as sexual harassment. Manhood acts are so pervasive and commonplace that they are taken for granted in many workplaces. In other words, they are hegemonic. But what if these hegemonic acts were laid bare? What if they were called into question by men themselves? What if manhood were done in a way that does not reproduce gender inequality but instead problematizes it?

In our project, we apply insights from feminist theories of men and masculinity. We adapted Advocates & Allies as a strategy for bringing men in, leveraging their privileges, and redeploying patriarchal dividends, with the goal of reframing the unearned and unexamined privileges of manhood in a strategic way: as resources for interrupting bias and centering women so as to change culture and structure through practices.

4.1 History of Advocates and Allies

The institutional meritocracy was established by white men, built on criteria biased to value contributions by white men, and perpetuated by white men knowingly and unknowingly. Having meritorious advocates and allies within the system changes the foundation of the way faculty are perceived. These advocates for change undermine the hegemonic narrative that centers men so as to render women visible (Perez, 2019).

The Advocates and Allies (A&A) program was created by North Dakota State University (NDSU) as part of a 2008 National Science Foundation (NSF) ADVANCE Institutional Transformation award (HRD-0811239). Because NSF ADVANCE focuses on institutional changes that benefit women faculty in STEM, A&A has been designed for faculty who identify as men. Based on success of the program (Anicha et al., 2015; Anicha et al., 2017), A&A has since been implemented at over 20 universities (Anicha et al., 2015; Cabrera et al., 2017; Spanierman & Smith, 2017). In 2015, the United States’ National Science Foundation awarded North Dakota State University and The Ohio State University, Rochester Institute of Technology, the University of North Texas, and the University of Wyoming an NSF ADVANCE PLAN-D grant (HRD-1500604) to study the effectiveness of Advocates and Allies programs.¹

More recently, NDSU led Advocates, led Ally Workshops and/or conducted Advocate facilitation at other institutions and organizations, including the Adams State University, the American Society for Engineering Education, Arizona State University, Auburn University, Bucknell University, Clarkson University, Clemson University (HRD-1629934), the Colorado School of Mines, Indiana University, the University of California Santa-Barbara, the University of Cincinnati, the University of Dayton, the University of Minnesota Duluth, the University of Missouri-Columbia, the University of Pittsburgh, the University of Portland, the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, the US Institute of Theatre Technology, and the Women in Engineering Proactive Network (WEPAN). In 2019, the NSF awarded NDSU, Iowa State University, Michigan Technological University, and Western Michigan University, an Advance partnership grant (HRD-1935960), which includes a component to further establish and develop Advocates and Allies programs for faculty who identify as men.

A&A is an intersectional approach (Crenshaw, 2017; Collins, 2022) to disrupting entrenched hierarchies by recruiting, training, and deploying members of historically privileged groups on campus to interrupt and correct interpersonal and procedural biases “on the ground.” This model recognizes that gender-equity is a concern across all social institutions and that advocates and allies across faculty and administrators are key to disrupting bias and deconstructing systemic gender inequities. In particular, A&A creates teams of white men faculty and administrators to become change agents on behalf of women faculty in STEM, including the most marginalized faculty. This program is important in several ways. First, it helps to correct entrenched power imbalances that reproduce white men’s privilege in the academy (Rosser, 2004; Bystydzienski & Bird, 2006; Bird, 2011). Second, it takes the onus from marginalized faculty, who report feeling socially isolated and exhausted from fighting bias fatigue at work and in their communities (Arnold et al., 2016; Smith et al., 2017). Third, it recognizes that lasting change requires ongoing interventions for including diversity (Kalev et al., 2006).

Advocates & Allies are faculty who identify as men and who are committed to action in support of gender equity. Through Ally training, men are equipped with the knowledge, skills, and strategies to effect positive change. Although men are the drivers of the A&A program, the program founders thought it was critical to maintain accountability to women. Allies are trained men who promote gender equity through an emphasis on personal and local action. Advocates are allies with an established record in support of gender equity who dedicate significant time and effort to the Advocates & Allies program. Like Allies, Advocates are committed to personal and local action, but they also lead Ally workshops, organize Advocates & Allies activities, and work with women colleagues to set Advocates & Allies priorities and strategies. For more, visit their website.

In adapting A&A here at ECU, our goal was to leverage power and privilege and create a “we” rather than “us/them.” Ultimately, the advocates will act as everyday agents of change, helping to shift culture, create accountability, and enforce university-level policies that formally prohibit biases.

4.2 Implementation at ECU

As we designed our intervention for gender inequality in STEM fields at ECU, we invested in Advocates & Allies as a promising model for making lasting change on our campus. Ideally, sustained transformation occurs through a cycle of positive, inclusive use of power, privilege, and authority in order — ironically — to disrupt the hegemony of that power, privilege, and authority. In Figure 3, we illustrate the logic of harnessing and deploying the power and influence of men at our university to make changes to the gender structure by leading shifts in culture, interactions and even organizational rules and processes.

This model depicts a marathon, not a race. It is a slow, iterative process that requires the deployment of status to create interest in the subject matter, increase the legitimacy of concerns, and to draw people in as allies.

As shown in the timeline in Figure 4, we were awarded the grant from NSF ADVANCE during the height of the global COVID-19 pandemic. That timing slowed our launch of programming. However, as soon as possible, we began to implement A&A on campus. A call for Advocates was advertised, and men across campus applied. The THRIVE team selected Advocates based on their leadership and influence on campus. Once they were selected, they were trained in person by the North Dakota State University team in a data-informed way to recognize, understand, and intervene in the unequal gender structure on campus, particularly as it relates to women and under-represented minorities in STEM. The Advocates were told that their role is not to “fix the women,” but instead to interrupt the gender structure, calling in more allies to expand their sphere of influence and to act as change agents. Advocates designed programming to raise awareness and recruit allies. Large public events, such as a screening of the film, Picture a Scientist (Shattuck & Cheney, 2020), have been effective ways of drawing attention to gender inequality in STEM. This film creates empathy and offers some avenues for change. The Advocates invited a panel of women in STEM to provide further real-world connections to the incidents depicted in the documentary.

Ally workshops are the main route to recruit and train more men. These are short workshops (up to two hours) designed to introduce men to gender bias and to begin the conversation about how to make change. They are not meant to be stand-alone experiences that “fix the men.” Coupled with increased awareness about gender inequality fostered by high profile THRIVE-sponsored events, Ally training is meant to catalyze growth in critical consciousness, which will hopefully — if THRIVE is working effectively — be fueled through iterative exposure and positive reinforcement. Advocates lead the workshops, trading on their cultural capital so as to increase the legitimacy of training materials for participants.

Ally trainings are announced across the university, and they are advertised as being open to all men. Despite the focus on men, two training sessions had a woman who attended. At Ally training, Advocates present participants with data from empirical studies about the problem of gender inequality in STEM, showing how that hinders women’s careers. Training sessions begin by calling men in, explaining that men are important to change for several reasons: 1) Women are tired of educating men on gender-equity issues; 2) Women are tired of having prime responsibility to fix gender-equity issues; 3) Women like the idea of men working with other men (but they also want accountability and transparency). 4) Involving men, a group that is not traditionally or fully involved in gender equity, expands the capacity for organizational change. While the “women are tired” language may distance men from women’s challenges, it does help to put positive pressure on male participants to step up and do their part.

Ally training sessions define key concepts in the gender inequality literature, include gender equality, gender equity, the chilly climate, and micro aggressions. They bring in real world scenarios where women are treated in biased ways by people who could conceivably be the participants’ faculty colleagues. For example, in one scenario, participants are asked to think about a faculty member who commonly states that certain colleagues receive grants because of their gender or race. The participants are asked to think about factors that are relevant to understanding and assessing whether this scenario matters and for whom. Advocates ask: Do the gender, race, and rank of the faculty member matter? How? In what ways? Where were these statements made? In an official faculty meeting or over lunch? Does that matter? Why?. These conversations require the participants to think beyond the surface about power dynamics and allyship. In order to activate these participants, it is important for them to know that these are local problems, affecting people they work with and care about, not just abstract concerns. The sessions shine a light on common struggles, and they also offer tools for making change. For example, rather than interrupting a woman colleague in a meeting, allies are guided to focus their attention on what she is saying. Talk less. Listen more. Allies learn how to hold other men accountable for micro aggressions.

The content in ally training sessions is intersectional, pointing out that neither men nor women are monolithic categories. This claim is grounded in empirical evidence. Rhetorically, it is also a useful point to make when asking men to step back and assess their own privilege critically. In other words, knowing that not all men are alike helps Allies to recognize that they themselves have agency. They can push back against the gender structure, even if their male colleagues are complicit. This knowledge may empower them to “do manhood” in counter-hegemonic ways.

5.1 Thinking Critically: Shifts in Culture

We find that A&A is helping Allies to think critically about gender inequality on campus as it plays out in interpersonal relationships, organizational practices, and cultural norms. Participants in Ally training are able to recognize and problematize gender disparities. They indicate that they want to be part of the change. Developing a critical consciousness is an important step in counter-hegemonic action.

For example, at a recent Ally training workshop, participants were read several scenarios, which they then discussed. At the end of the session, Advocates asked participants this:

Give us one example of how this workshop increased your awareness of the issues around climate, evaluation, and advancement of URM [under-represented minority] faculty on campus? Is there any issue that you think is urgent for us to address? Why?

According to participants, the Ally workshop increased their awareness of the following: salary disparities between men and women, implicit bias regarding gender and race, and barriers to advancement for women and underrepresented minorities. As one new Ally wrote,

I was unaware that women/URM are viewed as less competent for hiring other women or URM. I had knowledge of implicit bias occurring in women towards women previously, but understanding that they face personal repercussions as well is powerful.

The new Allies showed appreciation for the data, and the data were surprising to them. They were able to put their fledgling counter-hegemonic lenses about gender and race into words as soon as the workshop ended. They thought that it was urgent to address starting salary differences between women and men faculty as well as between white faculty and URM faculty. They also thought that it was important to prioritize promoting women and under-represented minority faculty from Associate professor to Full professor.

Participants in the Ally workshop were also asked this:

Which scenario resonated with you the most? Why? Considering the scenarios discussed or similar situations, which do you believe you have to help address these types of situations? Are there any of these tools you are particularly likely to utilize?

In responding, participants showed that they were thinking about power dynamics revealed in the discussions about the scenarios. For example, one participant wrote,

The scenarios were all helpful, but I especially appreciated the one about the female colleague who was mistaken for a student (or who was the recipient of that comment) because it’s always hard to decide what to do in such a moment — both to be an ally and yet not a “white knight” that puts her in an even worse situation with/in front of the colleague.

Participants internalized responsibility to act when they see a real-life scenario play out in the future. They pledged to stand up and interrupt bullying and bias, highlight the work and accomplishments of their women and URM colleagues, and to share data with others in positions of authority so as to help spread the word about bias and the harms it causes. In other words, they committed to act in counter-hegemonic ways, expanding the sphere of influence, a key component in the logic model for change through A&A. These participants showed empathy and agency. Those are good signs that Ally training is impactful on a small scale, at least in the moment. Allies express empathy. They leave training sessions feeling like they know where to focus their energy for making change, rather than being overwhelmed by a problem that is too big and too entrenched to tackle. Critical thinking like this may help shift culture.

5.2 Speaking up: Shifting Practices

There are some indications that participating in Ally training, whether as an Advocate or an Ally, has given some men in leadership roles on campus a lens through which to see gender inequality and a language with which to discuss it. For example, in Spring 2023, the College of Arts and Sciences conducted several searches for new department chairs. In two of the searches, applicants for the chairship had completed Ally training. As part of each search process, candidates were required to give a public talk about their leadership style and preparedness to fill the position. Each of these Allies talked openly about what they learned in THRIVE’s Ally training about interpersonal bias as well as gendered and racialized structural processes that advantage whites and men and disadvantage women and URM. They called attention to this work to large audiences, thereby expanding the sphere of influence. In their presentations, these allies promised to address biases in culture, processes, and interactions among colleagues so as to increase equity, transparency, and inclusion. They promised their faculty colleagues and the Dean that, if hired as chairs, they would use their knowledge and authority to make change.

In another case, we look at the impact of ally training on a department chair’s discretion and allocation of valuable resources. “Jim”² was a Chair of a STEM department who had recently completed ally training. Jim was negotiating with two candidates for two different faculty positions in his department. He was authorized to hire both of them as new faculty. One of these people was a woman, “Claire,” and the other was a man, “Theo.” At ECU, when new faculty are hired, they are provided with a “startup package,” which includes equipment, funds for data collection and analysis, research-related travel, and other key resources that are necessary to fuel a new faculty member as they launch their career. Along with negotiating salary, the Chair also negotiates startup packages. Different faculty need different things. Further, different faculty ask for different things. Gendered and racialized patterns in self-advocacy (Stuhlmacher & Linnabery, 2013; Motru & Lent, 2023) have shown to advantage white men. In this case, Claire’s search process was completed first, and so Jim negotiated with her first. She created a detailed budget and wrote a compelling justification for her research needs. After several rounds of discussion, Jim settled on a figure for Claire’s startup, and he submitted that request. Next, Jim began negotiations with Theo. In terms of dollar value, Theo requested nearly a third more than Claire. In the interest of gender equity, Jim negotiated with Theo, asking him to reflect on whether the resources he requested were crucial or whether they could be acquired through grants or other sources. Theo agreed that he did not actually need all that he requested. Jim was able to submit a budget request for Theo that met his needs while not systemically disadvantaging Claire. Jim explained that he only thought about the inequity because of his Ally training. Both budgets would likely have been approved without revisions. But Jim recognized that Claire would have fewer resources, and that she would feel devalued when she learned of the disparity between her and her new colleague, Theo (these budgets are not confidential). Jim used his knowledge, empathy, and positional privilege to undermine the gender structure. These data points are useful. We see signs that campus leaders with decision-making power and influence, when outfitted with a critical gender equity lens and a charge to make change, helps to shift practices.

5.3 Pushing Back: Shifting Structure

The third sign that A&A may be making change is that some Advocate and Allies are not only acting in small ways to make change, but they are also pushing back and inciting major structural changes. In one notable case, Advocates leveraged their power and influence to construct a compelling argument for removal of a departmental leader from their post. This is very unusual, even in cases where abuses are flagrant. We argue that this case was successful because of THRIVE’s network of positional leaders, including Advocates.

This case began after the THRIVE@ECU team had hosted several large public events and people across campus had begun to talk about gender inequality in new ways. Long-term patterns of bad behavior and gender bias — many of which had been reported previously, to no avail — were revisited and reexamined through a new lens. THRIVE essentially was telling the campus community, “We care about you, and we are here to ensure you are treated equitably.” When the Advocates program began, women faculty and graduate students who had been surviving abusive male colleagues, research mentors, and department chairs began to tell THRIVE team members and Advocates about their experiences. It is important to note here that THRIVE’s Principal Investigator (PI) is herself a woman in STEM and the Dean of the largest college at ECU. When she began to hear about patterns of abuse, she connected with Advocates and Deans of other college, taking action to appropriately report and put into context the particularly abusive behavior of one employee with positional authority. He was not in the PI’s college, but she leveraged her influence to call meetings to seek counsel. Through this leadership network, resources and policies were identified, and actions were taken by faculty in the affected unit to navigate and report the issues. While we hesitate to offer additional details herein (as personnel related concerns can be sensitive in nature), there is ample evidence to support the idea that THRIVE@ECU impacted faculty’s awareness of the responsibilities of leaders on campus and how to report unethical behavior and poor performance. This culminated in the replacement of this particular leader with someone who also is part of the A&A group.

We take this is a major success, further weakening the gender structure at ECU. Holding bad actors accountable is important for interrupting other problematic behavior by other problematic leaders. It also serves to delegitimize cultural beliefs and everyday practices of bias, helping to change all faculty, not only campus leaders. When obstacles are removed for faculty, the structure begins to shift.