Professor Lauren B. Edelman has done research on "symbolic compliance" (from The
Guardian), which refers to the way organizations' anti-harassment and diversity
policies and procedures are primarily focused on demonstrating compliance in a legal
context - and likely do little to actually reduce discrimination or harassment.
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/may/02/sexual-harassment-training-f…
Pdf of Edelman's work (2008):
http://web.stanford.edu/~mldauber/workshop/Edelman.pdf
Under that theory the intention of the course is to tick a legal box - "we sent all
our staff on a course" - but the course actually causes what Edelman describes as,
"a backlash in males".
Marie
Date: Wed, 4 May 2016 11:13:58 -0400
From: risker.wp(a)gmail.com
To: gendergap(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Subject: Re: [Gendergap] Study: men who receive harassment training “significantly less
likely” to recognize harassment
Responding to WSC: In many settings, including healthcare, higher education, and certain
industries, ALL staff are provided with anti-harassment training; it's often treated
as an extension of basic health and safety training, and is frequently mandatory. It has
nothing to do with the gender identity of staff or their personal history of interactions
with others. It is usually presented as a philosophical approach, and there is rarely an
effective program that reinforces optimal behaviour and discourages suboptimal behaviour
that follows behind the training. So no, I don't think it's a case of "those
who need it most" going there. Neotarf, I'd actually question whether
there's any validity to the *perception* that training works; in fact, there are a lot
of studies that indicate training (particularly ritualized training that is provided
without a specific context) is not closely associated with behavioural change. It's
only a step above "create a policy". What works is regular reinforcement when
behaviour lapses, and empowerment of people to reinforce the desired behaviour.
Risker/Anne
On 3 May 2016 at 15:04, WereSpielChequers <werespielchequers(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Significantly less likely than men who don't attend such training..........
So does that mean the targeting is correct and the people sent on such training are
disproportionately those who most need it?
If you want a test of how effective that training is you could try an AB test. Study a
large group of attendees, half before and half after such training. Or a large group of
men a few months before and after such training to see if those who attend make more
progress than those who don't. Comparing those who don't attend with those who do
would only make sense if the attendees were randomly chosen.
WereSpielChequers
On 3 May 2016, at 15:53, Neotarf <neotarf(a)gmail.com> wrote:
"A study in the Journal of Applied Behavioral Science
found men who participated in a university staff sexual harassment
programme were “significantly less likely” to see coercive behaviour as
sexual harassment."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/work/sexual-harassment-training-makes-men-…
_______________________________________________
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap(a)lists.wikimedia.org
To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
_______________________________________________
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap(a)lists.wikimedia.org
To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
_______________________________________________
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap(a)lists.wikimedia.org
To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap