Search for: All records

PurposeIn this JOCM Viewpoint article, the author reflects on the expectations of some minoritized group members that power holders and otherwise privileged group members should exhibit authentic allyship. Specifically, it is suggested that these expectations are unrealistic given both the challenges of being an ally and the absence in many power holders of the type of consciousness that enables effective allyship. Design/methodology/approachAn analysis of the challenges inherent in allyship as well as the criticism that performative rather than authentic allyship frequently occurs is followed by a review of research on consciousness and the implications of the level of consciousness for generating effective ally behavior. FindingsDifferent stages of consciousness generate different types of responses to the challenges of allyship, some being more effective than others. Reaching a certain stage of consciousness development may increase the likelihood that the ally will be able to hold space for the emotional well-being of the marginalized and the need for instrumental change, which are both necessary for effective allyship to occur. Without these, an individual’s allyship is likely to be absent or at the most performative. Allyship groups can be helpful in supporting this level of consciousness through their group norms. Originality/valueThis viewpoint challenges conventional assumptions that privileged members of society should engage in allyship and suggests only a subset will be able to make the commitment and exhibit the behaviors required of authentic allies. 

Abstract While formal early career mentoring is considered significant for faculty success, few universities have instituted programmatic mid‐career mentoring. We review the reasons mid‐career mentoring is important especially for under‐represented (URM) faculty and consider the ways the entrenched model of one‐on‐one mentoring can fail URM faculty. We advocate for a feminist‐inspired peer mentoring approach using a Community of Practice model that supports mentoring as advocacy. We then describe how our own mid‐career mentoring program enacts this approach and offer lessons learned that include the need to make a cost‐analysis case. 

Advocates and Allies (A&A) programs, designed to educate individuals from demographic majority groups to become more centrally involved in equality endeavors, have been introduced to more than twenty U.S higher education institutions with the support of NSF ADVANCE grant funding. Most evaluations of the impact of these programs have been through indirect measures, such as self-reports of satisfaction with the training. We analyzed data across five years and several iterations of A&A workshops at a research-active, public Midwestern, predominantly White, STEM-dominant university to determine changes in participants’ perceptions of equity at the institution. Results suggest that participants left the workshops with more perceptions of local inequity at the institution than they reported before the workshop. Effects were found for both perceptions of racial equity and perceptions of gender equity but were stronger and more consistent for the latter. The effects of the workshops varied across time. Implications of the results for scholarship and practice for the improvement of advocacy programs are discussed. 

Predominantly STEM campuses tend to have a much lower representation of individuals with non-majority identities and lower inclusion of these individuals within organizational processes. To address these issues, an Advocates and Allies (A&A) program developed by another university that engages majority (on the basis of race and gender identities) individuals in institutional change [1] was vetted for an NSF ADVANCE Adaptation Grant. We, as members of the ADVANCE PI team, share our challenges and strategies as we established the program on our campus. We intend our discussion to be useful for other STEM-intensive institutions as they engage majority individuals in institutional change. The A&A program centers around workshops that discuss how discrimination manifests in universities and include the institution’s own data. We highlight adaptations we made specific to our institution in order to encourage other institutions to be responsive to the contexts that impact DEIS work on their campuses. For instance, our initial adaptation of the Advocates and Allies program sought to be more inclusive by including LGBTQIA+ and staff on the Advocates team and A&A Advisory Board (A3B). Our adaptations have also reflected an ongoing commitment to present race and ethnicity data in addition to gender data. Other adaptations we discuss concern developing the credibility of the team presenting the workshops and incorporating an ongoing Journal Club to discuss the relevant literature. This paper also shares reflections on the best strategies to direct the Advocate’s growth in DEIS knowledge and confidence, as well as the development of collaborative relationships between the two groups and A3B’s comfort level guiding and directing the Advocates. We reflect upon sustaining the A&A teams through the COVID pandemic, including cultivating online engagement and rebuilding post-COVID team dynamics. This work describes one team’s journey in navigating an adaptation of a well-known Advocates and Allies program onto a STEM-intensive campus. We include some assessment results from the workshops and close with recommendations for establishing and maintaining an A&A program. 

The authors suggest that the research-to-practice gap, such as that found in evidence-based management, is due in part to a lack of attention to embodied knowledge. The recommendation is for change agents to bring attention to embodied knowing when implementing change based on research. Three approaches for introducing increased corporeal understanding are proposed. These include embracing the embrained body including attending to kinesthetic resistance, exploring what research means for intersectional bodies, and working with corporeal metaphors.