On 05/04/2016 09:24 AM, Neotarf wrote: It's hard to know Gruniad's intention, given the research articles are also relatively old (not just published or forthcoming): 1. Bingham & Scherer (2001) 2. Tinkler, Li, & Mollborn (2007) Also TL&M (2007) don't cite B&S (2001)... Here's the appropriate bit for B&S (2001). ! We randomly assigned departments to the experimental (program participation) ! and control (program nonparticipation) conditions. Staff and faculty ! departments were chosen from separate lists, with staff departments organized ! by type of labor (administrative vs. nonadministrative) and faculty ! departments organized by college; this stratification procedure assured that ! different categories of staff and faculty departments in each of the colleges ! would be represented in the two conditions. Random selection of departments ! rather than individuals resulted in a quasi-experimental design in which each ! employee and combination of employees did not have an equal chance of being ! assigned to one of the two conditions of the study. Because our unit of ! analysis was the individual employee, we explored possible sources of bias due ! to differences between employees who were assigned to the experimental and ! control conditions. Specifically, we compared the questionnaires returned by ! experimental and control groups on both demographic and experiential ! variables. Pearson chi-square analyses (p ≤ .05) were performed to test the ! associations between participation condition and each variable. The ! composition of the two respondent groups was not significantly different in ! terms of gender, race/ethnicity, position at the university, prior experience ! as a perpetrator of sexual harassment, experience being accused of sexual ! harassment, or experience as a sexual harassment victim. The phi coefficients ! for this set of variables ranged from .03 to .06. These results suggest that ! employees in the two groups were comparable in important respects prior to the ! intervention. So it doesn't look like it's suffering from selection bias (wherein the abusers are sent to the training and have worse attitudes from the start). If someone did want to write a WP article, I'm willing to help on this point.

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:

"Edelman, the UC Berkeley professor, said she suspects the backlash could stem from the “cartoonish, somewhat unrealistic” harassment examples that trainings often include – lessons that can make participants skeptical and resentful." I suspect that might have a lot to do with it. I'd also suspect that most, if not all, of the examples of sexual harassment shown in such training are male-on-female ... and the reaction from men who take the training is as understandable as the reaction from black people would be if they were shown anti-shoplifting videos in which every single person apparently doing so was black. Anecdotally, some people actually have the idea that sexual harassment is something that is only legally actionable when men do it to women (which further adds heteronormativity as an implicit bias). Yet as of 2013 17.6% of the sexual-harassment claims filed with the U.S. Equal Employment Opprtunity Commission were filed by men (source). |   | |   | |   |   |   |   |   | | When Men Face Sexual HarassmentA new study looks at the kind of sexual harassment male workers can experience | | | | View on www.psychologytoday... | Preview by Yahoo | | | |   | also here Researchers interested in further exploring this theory might try out a version of the training in which the scenarios depicted show harassment without regard to the gender or sexuality of harasser or victim, then seeing if they still get the same results. Daniel Case On Thursday, May 5, 2016 12:22 PM, Marie Earley <eiryel(a)hotmail.com> wrote: #yiv9642299388 --.yiv9642299388hmmessage P{margin:0px;padding:0px;}#yiv9642299388 body.yiv9642299388hmmessage{font-size:12pt;font-family:Calibri;}#yiv9642299388 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 listGendergap(a)lists.wikimedia.orgTo 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

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. I would add government sector to that list, especially since WP is more and more partnering with government agencies. Neotarf, I'd actually question whether there's any validity to the I have seen it work over and over, routinely. A new employee comes in, is given a many-times-xeroxed and barely legible packet to read, and when they finish they are given a paper to sign that they have read the anti-harassment training materials and will abide by the policy. The packet contains scenarios like complimenting a woman on her dress; it's okay to say she looks nice in the dress, it's not okay to wax poetic about what it does for her figure. The training material also spells out what to do and who do go to in case of harassment, i.e. do they have to say something to the harasser first that their comments are not welcome, etc.before they fill out a harassment form, which will undoubtedly have a form number; also which HR functionary is responsible and what paperwork they have to maintain in the employee file. I'm still trying to get my head around the "only a step above 'create a policy'" thing. If something is policy, it is a done deal. The behaviour never lapses. I suppose nobody wants that in their personnel file. I don't understand why the WMF has both an anti-discrimination policy and a privacy policy that they are apparently not interested in enforcing. But maybe my expectation that "if something is policy, it is a done deal" is based on the kind of accountability that comes with Title 7 and the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that only applies to employers and employees, in spaces that employers can control.