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-failing-women

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@gmail.com
To: gendergap@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@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@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-less-likely-to-report-inapp/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_mediu

_______________________________________________
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

_______________________________________________
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap


_______________________________________________ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap