Graduate Students Perception of Gender Bias - Essay Example

?Running Head: GENDER BIAS Examining Graduate Perception of Gender Bias Examining Graduate Perception of Gender Bias Introduction Gender bias has been recognised as a ubiquitous but subtle inequity in colleges and universities. Gender bias is predominately viewed as male behaviours that adversely affect women. The literature provides extensive insight into gender bias behaviours; the impact of these behaviours on (undergraduate) women; potential reasons for gender bias including power, traditional stereotyping, and social conditioning; and recommended corrective actions (Fritschner, 2000). In addition, the literature argues that the nature of gender bias changes as women and men mature from elementary school children through adolescence, to college undergraduate and graduate students (Kelley & Parsons, 2000) Given that men and women participate in gender bias behaviours, research provides limited qualitative insight to explain why men and women accept such behaviours in a classroom environment (Fritschner, 2000). This paper compares the perceptions of male and female graduate students regarding the influence of gender in the classroom. Once gender influences are better understood, women and men may also have the opportunity to improve their understanding of each other. Literature Review The Sex Discrimination Act 1975 outlawed discrimination based on several characteristics, including gender. However, long­standing attitudes, traditions, and practices continued to subtly subjugate minority groups based on race, gender, ethnicity, age, and sexual orientation. As noted by Haslett and Lipman (1997), "As overt, visible discrimination was challenged in the 1960s and 1970s, it became replaced by subtle and covert discrimination" (p. 36). Beginning in the early 1980s, popular research by Sadker and Sadker (1985), Hall and Sandler (1982), and others explored subtle mechanisms that marginalised women in the classroom. As defined by Mary Rowe (1977), gender bias produces "micro inequities" reflecting "everyday interactions in which individuals are often treated differently because of their gender" (Sandler, Silverberg, and Hall, 1996, p.1 0). Haslett and Lipman (1997) observed: Micro inequities are particularly ubiquitous because in each instance the harm seems too small to bother with. In the aggregate, however, they constitute a serious barrier to productivity, advancement, and inclusion. Micro inequities are particularly difficult to respond to because of the face issues involved as well as the seeming "smallness" of each single instance. (p. 38) As summarised by Fassinger (1995), research efforts produce conflicting opinions. For example, Hall and Sandler's widely referenced 1982 report provided anecdotal documentation of gender bias in academia, concluding that gender bias created a "chilly climate" for women in colleges and universities. However, Howard and Henney (1998) dispute the existence of a chilly climate. While Young (2001) explores biases that have an adverse impact on boys, most gender bias research examines the marginalising behaviours committed by men against women. However, gender bias includes more than men marginalising women's efforts. Haslett and Lipman (1997) observed that "women may discriminate against other women through their reluctance to support other women. And women may discriminate against themselves through limiting their own aspirations or an unwillingness to take risks" (pp. 35-36). King (1998) found that women unconsciously favor academic papers based on the assumption that the paper was written by a man. Research on gender bias provides a rich assortment of quantitative and anecdotal investigations into the nature and impact of gender bias in academia. As examples, Karp and Yoels (1976) quantified classroom participation among undergraduate and graduate students. Hall and Sandler's chilly classroom reports (Hall & Sandler, 1982) were based primarily on anecdotal research. Jamison (1999) evaluated interviews with more than 340 undergraduate "university girls" to identify problems in adapting to the university environment. Nunn (1996) triangulated college classroom observations and student and faculty surveys to evaluate the impact of instructor behaviour on student participation. Kelley and Parsons (2000) surveyed female staff, faculty, and students to research sexual harassment, including gender bias. Such research reflects the diversity of gender bias studies; however, qualitative interviews of both male and female graduate students from the same academic environment are limited. As Fassinger (1995) observed, research on classroom interactions is predominately focused on studies of children. Fassinger concluded, "Chilly classroom researchers would be well advised to turn their attention toward the dynamics of classroom peer groups [including graduate classrooms] in the future" (p. 94). In her dissertation, Hess-Almubarak (1994) observed, "The literature purports an extensive documentation of gender-based oppression in higher education" (p. 3), concluding a clear need for qualitative research of graduate women experiences. Myers and Dugan (1996) found "that gender-biased behaviour remains a serious issue in graduate school classrooms" (p. 337) and called for additional research to improve the awareness of gender bias influences. Studies by Fritschner (2000); and Tisdale (1993) observed that non-traditional female students (those 25 years old and older) participate more in classroom sessions and are more assertive. Tisdale concluded: The fact that the women were more vocal than the males, particularly the women in their 30s and 40s, may also be due to the fact that these were non-traditional- age students who, as graduate students, have already experienced some level of success in the higher education system. Because of their age and level of education, most of them also had some prior professional experience, which may have had some effect on their willingness to be more vocal. (pp. 221-222) Kelley and Parsons (2000) suggested that "Even within a university community different subgroups of women (e.g., undergraduates, graduate students, staff, faculty, and administrators) may experience the various types of [sexual] harassment with dissimilar frequency" (p. 550). Such research implies differing graduate classroom dynamics compared to undergraduate, primary, and secondary school classrooms, possibly with fewer incidents of some forms of gender bias. Some literature (Myers & Dugan, 1996) examines women's experiences in graduate school. However, few qualitative studies compare the perceptions of women and men in a similar graduate school environment.' Such a study could assess comparisons of student perceptions, evaluating the influence of gender (and gender bias) in the graduate classroom culture. Assuming men are even aware of gender issues, they may perceive gender bias behaviours over a broad spectrum of attitudes ranging from appropriate to offensive, from equitable (e.g., men interrupt everyone, not just women) to oblivious. To discuss gender issues in leadership education, this research might provide a basic building block that could neutralise men's preconceived beliefs about gender, allowing some objective discussions of gender issues in an educational forum. The research might also serve to better inform women of men's attitudes toward gender issues, allowing women to respond to routine classroom micro inequities. This research attempts to evaluate the perception of the influence of different sexes in the classroom, contributing to our knowledge of gender's influence in higher education. The research reveals women's and men's perceptions of gender influences. The research also identifies socially constructed classroom behaviours that may, in some fashion, limit efforts to minimise classroom gender bias. In addition, the research unexpectedly reveals the influence of privilege and power (beyond gender) in a graduate classroom. Perhaps by better understanding gender, privilege, and power, we might better limit the marginalising effects of these three classroom influences. Focus of this study While well documented in primary schools and the undergraduate classroom, gender bias research that compares the perspectives of both women and men appears limited, particularly in the graduate classroom. Thus, this paper investigates the following research questions: 1. How male and female students view the influence of different sexes in a graduate school classroom? 2. How are these perceptions similar or different? 3. What do these perceptions reveal about efforts to reduce classroom gender bias? To investigate these research questions, the researcher will perform a generic qualitative study (Merriam, 1999) using telephone interviews to assess the influence of gender in graduate classroom. The researcher will interview the volunteers who are graduate students to gain insight into the influence of gender in the graduate classroom. Methodology Research Approach This paper investigates graduates' perceptions of the influence of different sexes in the classroom and evaluates the differences and similarities in those perceptions. These comparisons help provide a foundation for future studies of gender influences in the graduate classroom. In addition, an investigation of male and female student perceptions toward classroom gender might contribute to a better understand of gender studies in a leadership education program. Gaining insight into the role of gender (and thus gender bias) in the graduate classroom requires some foundation on which to build. Conclusions concerning the influence of gender bias differ, gender research in the graduate classroom is limited, and undergraduate gender bias research may not be generalisable to the graduate classroom. Therefore, quantitative research questions might lack foundation and quantitative research focuses on statistically significant differences, ignoring similarities in survey responses. As a result, the methodology will emphasise qualitative inquiry and evaluation techniques. Research Approach As discussed in Merriam (1998), the researcher used a generic qualitative study to investigate the influence of gender in the graduate classroom. Merriam (1998) described five common types of qualitative research in education, including a "basic or generic qualitative study" (p. 11). She stated: The term basic or generic qualitative study [italics in original] refers to studies that exemplify the characteristics of qualitative research discussed earlier. Many qualitative studies in education do not focus on culture or build a grounded theory; nor are they intensive case studies of a single unit or bounded system. Rather, researchers who conduct these studies, which are probably the most common form of qualitative research in education, simply seek to discover and understand a phenomenon, a process, or the perspectives and worldviews of the people involved. (p. 11) Caelli, Ray, and Mill (2003) supported the concept of generic qualitative research that might possibly combine several approaches and noted, "Generally, the focus of the study is on understanding an experience or an event" (p. 4). They also observed a growth in the number of generic qualitative studies. Todres and Galvin (2005) employed a generic qualitative study "to generate a broad thematic understanding of the caring narrative" (p. 2). Their open-ended breadth inquiry "allowed the respondent maximum freedom in expressing the range, scope, and boundaries of the complex experience" (p. 5). Rationale for using Telephonic Interviews A qualitative inquiry might include face-to-face interviews with 8 to 20 participants. For example, Kuzel (1999) suggested a sample size of 12 to 20 participants in qualitative research. In qualitative dissertations on the related topic of sexual harassment, Hess-Almubarak (1994) interviewed 13 participants. However, this small sample size may not be adequate to capture the broad spectrum of perceptions that reflect a diverse society. Of particular interest are potential participants who might have limited or possibly no opinion on gender in the graduate classroom, and would be reluctant to volunteer for a time-consuming, in-person interview. On the other hand, increasing the sample size to capture diverse perspectives may require an excessive amount of time and be impractical for a research effort. The solution to both these issues could involve using telephone interview techniques instead of in-person interviews. "No opinion" participants might consent to a 30-minute telephone call, and the effort required for a telephone interview is less than in-person interviewing (Shuy, 2002). These factors would allow the researcher to increase the sample size. Although telephone interviews lose the advantages of personal interaction and nonverbal cues, they do support a larger and potentially more diverse participant population. Thus, compared to other qualitative researches, this research effort increased the breadth and diversity of respondents while limiting the depth of interviewee responses. Sampling and Data Collection The target population of this study consists of graduates students. The researcher has planned to limit participation to approximately 30 interviewees, 50% more than Kuzel's (1999) maximum recommended sample size. For each interview, the researcher will call the interviewee to arrange a time for the telephone interview. At the prearranged time, the researcher will call the interviewee and will conduct the qualitative interview using interview questions. The researcher will also record each interview using a telephone cassette recording device and a backup digital recording unit. Research Procedure Researcher will send a letter inviting graduates to participate in this study. This letter will include qualitative interview questions, allowing graduates to assess whether they want to participate in telephone interviews. Graduates who show their interest in this research will sign a Consent Form. The researcher will evenly divide volunteers between the genders, and evenly distribute participants among graduation years. This will provide some variation in participant graduate school experiences over time, in addition to gaining the perceptions of both genders. Prior to beginning actual interviews, the researcher will conduct pilot interviews to evaluate and refine qualitative interview questions. The researcher will contact six graduate students including both male and female students. These pilot interviews would help in refining questions using practice telephone interviews, a one-on-one review session, and a group meeting. Qualitative Interview Analyses The researcher will use coding method to identify "information about the data and interpretive constructs related to the analysis" (Merriam, 1998, p. 164). As noted by Rubin and Rubin (1995), "Coding is the process of grouping interviewees' responses into categories that bring together the similar ideas, concepts, or themes" (p. 238) of the research effort. In analysing interview transcripts, the researcher will evaluate each question individually by analysing the differences and similarities in the perceptions of women and men. For each question, the researcher will also summarise potential themes revealed in interviewee responses. After individual question evaluations, the researcher will evaluate the questions as a whole, comparing similarities and differences in women's and men's responses based on all interview data. This analysis step will provide a holistic evaluation of interview data. As noted by Rubin and Rubin (1995), the data analysis ends when the researcher has "found overarching themes and put them in the context of broader theory and answered the question 'So what?'" (p. 256). Ethical Consideration Participants will receive an informed consent form describing their participation in the study. The form will inform them that their participation would involve a telephonic interview. Participants will be informed that their participation is voluntary and they may choose to withdraw at any time without consequences. They will be informed that they are allowed to refuse to answer any question. In addition, participants will receive information on how to contact the researcher and the Institutional Review Board. Signed informed consent forms will be separated from all other materials to ensure anonymity of responses. Upon completion of the study participants will also receive a debriefing form explaining the purpose of the study. Data will be kept in a locked location in order to ensure confidentiality. Timeline of Research Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. Selection of Topic Done Literature review Study design Materials Data Collection Data Analysis Write-up Revisions Final Dissertation Summary This research is based on the observation that current literature provides few qualitative investigations of gender bias in the graduate classroom. As a result, comparisons of female versus male perceptions of classroom gender bias are rare and limit academia's understanding of the influence of different sexes in a graduate classroom. The methodology proposes to investigate the influence of gender as a proxy for classroom gender bias, using a generic, qualitative study and telephone interviews to collect data. The paper compares the perceptions of female and male graduates in response to selected questions. By analysing these responses, the researcher hopes to evaluate and characterise gender influences in the graduate classroom and also provide some insight into gender studies. References Caelli, K., Ray, L., & Mill, I. (2003). 'Clear as mud': Toward greater clarity in generic qualitative research. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 2 (2), 1-24. Fassinger, P. A. (1995). Understanding classroom interaction: Students' and professors' contributions to students' silence. Journal of Higher Education, 66 (1), 82-96. Fritschner, L. M. (2000). Inside the undergraduate college classroom. Journal of Higher Education, 71 (3),342-362. Hall, R. M., & Sandler, B. R. (1982). The classroom climate: A chilly one for women? Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges. Haslett, B. B., & Lipman, S. (1997). Microinequities: up close and personal. In N. Benokraitis (Ed.), Subtle sexism: Current practices and prospects for change (pp. 34­53). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Hess-Almubarak, E. (1994). Emigrating to the good life: A qualitative study of gender and ethnic diversity of graduate women, UMI Dissertation Services, Accession No: AA19512391. Howard, 1. R., & Henney, A. L. (1998). Student participation and instructor gender in the mixed-age college classroom. Journal of Higher Education, 69 (4), 384-405. Jameson, S. H. (1999). Certain adjustment problems of university girls. Journal of Higher Education, 70 (5), 485-493. Karp, D. A., & Yoels, W. C. (1976). The college classroom: Some observations on the meaning of student participation. Sociology and Social Research, 60 (4),421-439. Kelley, M. L., & Parsons, B. (2000). Sexual harassment in the 1990s. Journal of Higher Education, 71 (5),548-568. King, J. L. (1998). The effects of gender bias and errors in essay grading. Educational Research Quarterly, 22 (1), 13-25. Kuzel, A. J. (1999). Sampling in qualitative inquiry. In B. F. Crabtree & W. L. Miller (Eds.), Doing qualitative research (2nd ed.) (pp. 33-45). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Myers, D. J., & Dugan, K. B. (1996). Sexism in graduate classrooms: Consequences for students and faculty. Gender & Society, 10 (3), 330-350. Nunn, C. E. (1996). Discussion in the college classroom: Triangulating observational and survey results. Journal of Higher Education, 67 (3), 243-266. Rowe, M. P. (1977). The saturn's rings phenomenon: Micro-inequities and unequal opportunity in the American economy. In P. Bourne & V. Parness (Eds.), Proceedings, National Science Foundation Conference on Women's Leadership and Authority. Santa Cruz, CA: University of California, Santa Cruz. Rubin, H. J., & Rubin, I. S. (1995). Qualitative interviewing: The art of hearing data. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Sadker, M., & Sadker, D. (1985, March). Sexism in the schoolroom in the' 80s. Psychology Today, 54-57. Sandler, B. R., Silverberg, L. A., & Hall, R. M. (1996). The chilly classroom climate: A guide to improve the education of women. Washington, DC: National Association for Women in Education. Shuy, R. W. (2002). In-person versus telephone interviewing. In J. F. Gubrium & J. A. Holstein (Eds.), Handbook of interview research: Context & method (pp. 537-555). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Tisdale, E. J. (1993). Interlocking systems of power, privilege, and oppression in adult higher education classes. Adult Education Quarterly, 43 (4),203-226. Todres, L., & Galvin, K. (2005). Pursuing both breadth and depth in qualitative research: Illustrated by a study of the experience of intimate caring for a loved one with Alzheimer's disease. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 4 (2), 1-11. Young, C. (2001, February). Where the boys are: Is America shortchanging male children? Reason, pp. 24-31. Read More